Jump to content
rajub

Penalty by CIC for sec 4 violation

Recommended Posts

rajub

On 18-11-2009 CIC has levied the penalty of Rs. 5000 on a school principal for violation of section 4 (proactive disclosure).

 

Here is the link to the decision.

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-18112009-25.pdf

 

The CIC said it had imposed maximum permissible penalty of Rs. 5000 under the Act.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

This is a very bad order.

The Principal was neither the PIO nor the deemed PIO.

 

Under Sec 20, only the PIO can be penalised.

 

There can be no penalty under Sec 20(1) for not implementing Sec 4.

Where does Sec 20(1) say any such thing ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DineshK

The CIC has passed a correct order by using his power under section 18(2) of RTI Act. In the recent order of Education directorate, all principals of Govt. school have been designated as PIOs. Even otherwise, the Principal should have respected and implement the order of CIC which was passed to all the principals through Directorate of Eduction.

 

Even after 5 years of RTI Act, 95% of the Public Authorities have not implemented section 4 of the RTI Act. Even after passing the orders by CIC the PAs are taking it very casually. They will upload the information for few days after the passing the order and thereafter it is never updated.

 

Here is example of my own case. .

 

A circular was passed by Director of Education and the list from all schools was uploaded by the department for few days. After one month the links are found nowhere.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Dinesh,

 

Please read the order carefully:

 

1. It was the PIO who was directed by the Commission to display all information.

2. Then the Jt. Director has issued a circular to DDE's/PIO's to display all the information as per CIC order

There is no mention whether circular was sent to the Principal or not.

3. The IC has penalised the Principal of the school. There is no mention anywhere about him being the PIO or deemed PIO.

 

The Principal has not disobeyed the IC's orders - he has disobeyed the circular issued by the Jt. Director.

 

The IC's order does not have any mention of the DoE's order designating all Prinicpals as PIO's

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vijendra singh

IC ,Shailesh Gandhi acted well as per RTI law. He set an exellent example.

It was the duty of all the heads of the public deptts/ offices to publish all the required info in public domain suo moto within 120 days from October 2005. But no public office did that in true spirit. Some completed minimum formalities just to befool the Info Commissions as well as the hapless citizens.

SG passed very good order to teach lesson to the erring govt deptts.

I congratulate him for such commonsense.

All other ICs must follow him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar

As reported at thaindian.com on November 28th, 2009

 

Principals of nine Delhi University (DU) colleges have been fined Rs.5,000 each for not complying with the Right To Information (RTI) Act rule of placing information about their college in the public domain.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) acted against the principals for not following Section 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates suo moto disclosure by public institutions regarding budget, rules, expenditure and name of its Public Information Officer among other things. The CIC moved following a complaint from Rajeev Lala.

The colleges whose principals have been fined are Sri Aurobindo College, Aditi Mahavidyalaya, Bharti College, Mata Sundari College for Women, Swami Shraddhanand College, Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies, Ram Lal Anand College, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing and Amar Jyoti Rehabilitation and Research Centre. The DU has over 80 colleges.

The CIC has directed that the fine money be recovered from the principals’ salaries before Dec 10.

Lala in his complaint stated that he visited the website of these colleges and found they had not displayed the information as required by Section 4 of the RTI Act.

On June 7, Shailesh Gandhi, an information commissioner at the CIC, along with DU Vice Chancellor Deepak Pental had urged all colleges to ensure that they comply with Section 4 by Aug 15.

The commission sent reminders to the colleges warning that it would be forced to act if the order was not implemented.

The CIC held a hearing Nov 24 where it asked the college principals to appear with written submissions on “why penalty should not be imposed on them for refusing to meet their legal obligations under the act”.

Some promised to follow the requirement within three months and some within a day. Some principals expressed regret.

The commission said that even four years after the RTI Act was passed, legal requirements under it have still not been met by the colleges.

“In spite of repeated reminders the college does not appear to be willing to meet the Section 4 requirements of the act,” Gandhi noted in his order for each college. “The commission finds this as a fit case for penalty.”

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Merged the two threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

What a haste in deciding this case. :o

 

IC SG must be congratulated for his promptness in dealing with this complaint. A new Record & an award winning endeavour.

 

PCRF must be notified. :cool:

 

 

 

Complaint Received : 12 November 2009

 

Commission personally Perused the Website : Date not Known

 

Commission issued Show Cause Notice : In between

 

Hearing held & Penalty imposed: 24 November 2009

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar

As reported at ub-news.com on Nov 29, 2009

 

 

The Delhi High Court has stayed an order of the Central Information Commission imposing penalties of Rs.5,000 on the principals of about 22 private colleges of New Delhi.

On 24.11.2009 a single bench of Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi had fined the Principal of Delhi\’s Venkateswara College for not uploading the college\’s suo-moto disclosure under RTI Act 2005.

The college then approached the High Court and obtained stay on the ground that similar institutes like Sanksriti School have already obtained stay against providing information in RTI and the final order of the Court in Sanskriti School\’s case has been reserved since April 2009.

A complex question agitating the Court is whether \”non-governmental organisations\” which are heavily funded by the Government also require to be established by an Act of Parliament or order of Government.

Shri Venkateshwara College is affiliated to Delhi University but is owned and controlled by the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthana Trust. Other colleges affected include Sir Aurobindo College, St.Stephens College and Hindu College.

 

Source: Delhi High Court stays CIC order | Ub News

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

> Source: Ub News

 

Is this source authentic enough ! :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raipur007

Thanx for the useful information.

But, given link for order not working. Plz give proper link and help us.

 

CA Shekhar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

Good morning to everyone .

 

While it is urgently required that steps be taken by ICs for compliance of s.4 , yet the Order , per se , seems to be influenced by social activism . It is good that IC has started taking serious note of non-compliance of s.4 , but the decision is unlikely to stand the test if challenged .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
changethechangers

Hon'ble Sh. Shailesh Gandhi, the great RTI activist turned Central Information Commissioner is very particular in ensuring compliance of Section 4, i.e., suo-moto declarations in all public authorities (except CIC). Last year he had issued show cause notice to Food Commissioner of Delhi Government as to why suo-moto disclosures are not made at the PDS Outlets in Delhi. No one could understand how a Head of Department could be issued a show cause notice for imposition of penalty and how disclosure of information at the PDS outlets (which are not public authorities in themselves) is covered under Section 4. However, no one in the department resisted presumably because they were all of the view that the informations should be displayed at the PDS outlets for the information of PDS beneficiaries. Although no one could understand how it was covered under the RTI Act. But perhaps Hon'ble Sh. Shailesh Gandhi closes his eyes when he enters his office. Interestingly, his office is situated in the Club Building, Near Post Office, Old JNU Campus, Delhi and nowhere in the said building, is there any signboard indicating the presence of office CIC !!! And any board informfing the names of PIOs or First Appellate Authority? Question does not arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
And any board informfing the names of PIOs or First Appellate Authority? Question does not arise.

 

Are you sure about this ?

Are you sure there is no name board indication PIO, etc. in the Old JNU Campus ?

 

That simply means that the PIO of CIC gave me incorrect and misleading information in response to my RTI application !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
changethechangers
Are you sure about this ?

Are you sure there is no name board indication PIO, etc. in the Old JNU Campus ?

 

That simply means that the PIO of CIC gave me incorrect and misleading information in response to my RTI application !

 

 

I thought I have posted the position at your relevant thread. If I have not, I am sorry for delay. The CIC had informed you that in August Kranti Bhawan, name board of PIO is affixed opposite the lift. Actually now it is not there. Photograph of the place where it was temporarily affixed, is given below:

 

Image006.jpgThe board is now lying inside a room. Picture of the board is given below:

 

 

Image007.jpgThe other board was informed to be outside the Block IV, Old JNU Campus office where Dak Counter of the CIC is housed. This board is still there but the name of the FAA has not been updated. The FAA has been mentioned as Mr. Tarun whereas since long, Ms. Anita Gupta has been working as FAA. The third office of the CIC is at Club Building, Near Post Office, Old JNU Campus which houses the offices of Information Commissioners Ms.Annapurna Dixit, Mr. Satyananda Mishra, Mr. Shailesh Gandhi and Ms. Sushma Singh. There is no board of CIC at this office, leave alone the name board of PIO or FAA. Also, the board outside the office at Block IV, Old JNU Campus Office indicating the existence of Dak Counter there is painted in such a way that it is very difficult to read it. Picture of this board is given below. It has been painted on an old board and the earlier writings are creeping from below so that neither you can read the old writings nor the new ones. I would also request you to kindly see the thread http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/64939-hum-janane-nahin-deynge-new-formula-central-information-commission.html to see how CIC gives replies to RTI applications giving incorrect, incomplete information.

 

Image004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
changethechangers

As per the suo-moto declarations made by CIC on its website, the complaints and appeals are taken on first come first served basis. So had Sh. Shailesh Gandhi, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner had, while hearing the complaint on 24.11.2009, cleared all the complaints/appeals received by him upto 12.11.2009!!! Or, the suo-moto information given by the CIC is incorrect and misleading?

 

What a haste in deciding this case. :o

 

IC SG must be congratulated for his promptness in dealing with this complaint. A new Record & an award winning endeavour.

 

PCRF must be notified. :cool:

 

 

 

Complaint Received : 12 November 2009

 

Commission personally Perused the Website : Date not Known

 

Commission issued Show Cause Notice : In between

 

Hearing held & Penalty imposed: 24 November 2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
As per the suo-moto declarations made by CIC on its website, the complaints and appeals are taken on first come first served basis.

 

This is humbug !

Any person who believes that this is true is living in a fantasy world.

Just use some ingenious and advanced (like boolean) search techniques on the CIC website (both on the "status" page and the "decisions" page) and you can find literally thousands of instances which will prove the above statement incorrect.

 

Even the recent statement by the CIC that only 1% of the appeals and complaints pending are more than 1 year old is a blatant lie. As per CICs own website, the pendancy as end of August 2010 was 14098.

1% works out to approximately 141.

I personally have more than 30 appeals/complaints pending since December 2009.

Therefore how can the total pending for more than a year be only 140 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
changethechangers

So how is Central Information Commission anything different from other government departments in the matter of transparency? And if the CIC itself does not give correct information to the citizens, how can we expect it to be patron of transparency? You will say that most of the Information Commissioners are retired bureaucrats and are trained in hiding information. But Hon'ble Sh. Shailesh Gandhi is not a retired bureaucrat. He has been a great RTI activist. But in last more than two years he could not see that his office does not have a sign board indicating the existence of his office in the building; nor could he know that his office does not have a nameboard of PIO. How can then we expect the CIC to be helpful in changing the system? This changer of society itself needs to be changed!!

You will agree sir, if I reach my office late and have extended lunch breaks, I cannot expect my subordinates to be punctual and sincere howsoever long lectures on moral and legal requirements of punctuality and sincerity I give to them. This is what I have been crying right since my first post. The CIC has no moral power (although it has legal power) for enforcing the RTI Act and asking other public authorities to implement Section 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      The Konkan bench of Maharashtra State Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the public information officer (PIO) of Thane central jail for “pressuring” a murder undertrial, Vijay Palande, to withdraw an application filed by him
      Palande, convicted by the Bombay High Court last year for the double murders of two men in 1998, is currently lodged in Taloja central jail in Navi Mumbai. He is facing trial for three other murders, one allegedly committed in an Andheri flat of Delhi resident Arunkumar Tikku, one of a film producer, Karankumar Kakkad, and another of an unidentified person.
      While he was lodged in Thane central jail in 2017, Palande had filed an application under RTI on April 20, seeking the “egress and ingress recording of CCTV footage of the Kala Pani yard/main gate’s inside area” between 2 pm and 5 pm of the same day. Palande had claimed in his appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the superintendent of the jail, that an undertrial was given “VVIP facility” by being provided emergency police escort from Thane jail to the Thane civil hospital. He claimed that the undertrial was then taken to JJ hospital by the police escort and was subsequently taken in a private vehicle for a birthday party celebration and returned to the jail only the next day.
      After Palande’s RTI did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the PIO on May 22, 2017. When he still did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the SIC on September 21, 2017. Palande had written on his application that “I am withdrawing the RTI in duress as told by senior jailors”.
      The commission said it was not satisfied with the response given by the jail authorities and directed that a penalty be paid in monthly installments.

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      Palande, convicted by the Bombay High Court last year for the double murders of two men in 1998, is currently lodged in Taloja central jail in Navi Mumbai. He is facing trial for three other murders, one allegedly committed in an Andheri flat of Delhi resident Arunkumar Tikku, one of a film producer, Karankumar Kakkad, and another of an unidentified person.
      While he was lodged in Thane central jail in 2017, Palande had filed an application under RTI on April 20, seeking the “egress and ingress recording of CCTV footage of the Kala Pani yard/main gate’s inside area” between 2 pm and 5 pm of the same day. Palande had claimed in his appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the superintendent of the jail, that an undertrial was given “VVIP facility” by being provided emergency police escort from Thane jail to the Thane civil hospital. He claimed that the undertrial was then taken to JJ hospital by the police escort and was subsequently taken in a private vehicle for a birthday party celebration and returned to the jail only the next day.
      After Palande’s RTI did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the PIO on May 22, 2017. When he still did not get a response, he filed an appeal before the SIC on September 21, 2017. Palande had written on his application that “I am withdrawing the RTI in duress as told by senior jailors”.
      The commission said it was not satisfied with the response given by the jail authorities and directed that a penalty be paid in monthly installments.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy