RTI exposes 481 transfer requests by mumbai police officials written by MLAs and ministers in just 19 months.By Shrawan
RTI exposes 481 transfer requests by mumbai police officials written by MLAs and ministers in just 19 months.
the Mumbai police commissioner and the Maharashtra director-general of police have received a record 481 written recommendations for transfers from MLAs and ministers in just 19 months.
From March to September this year, the DGP got 99 recommendations for transfers, of which 30 have come from the chief minister himself. Some of the recommendations have also come from Deputy CM R R Patil.
This was exposed following queries filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
ecommendations for transfers had in fact come down in 2004, after the joint commissioner of police (administration) issued a strict warning to 71 police officers and 64 constables for trying to use political clout.
Also, two departmental circulars were issued stating that any violation of the rule 413 rule of the Police Manual would be strictly dealt with.
Rule 413 states that "government servants are forbidden to approach officials of other departments or non-official people for support and redress. They are liable for disciplinary action if MLAs or non-official persons approach the government on their behalf," the rule says.
Can a senior officer fine his subordinates for not furnishing information under the Right to Information Act? No, says the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC).
In a recent order, the KIC ruled that penalty under Section 20 (1) can be levied only by the information commissions and that too only on public information officers.
State chief information commissioner K K Misra and state information officer K A Thippeswamy ruled this while hearing a complaint filed by nine officials from Kolar.
They were fined Rs 25,000 each â€” maximum penalty under the RTI Act, 2005 â€” by assistant commissioner of Kolar subdivision for denying information to an applicant.
"The commission is aware that it is responsibility of all concerned, including the PIOs, to provide information sought under RTI Act promptly. Inordinate delays defeat the very purpose of the Act. In case, any official holding information is found to have failed to provide the required information without reasonable cause, he must be dealt with severely and action has to be taken against him. The option of levying penalty under section 20 (1) is, however, not available to the first appellate authority," KIC ruled.
S Narayanaswamy, editor of local weekly, sought details of lands granted and copies of mutations from the tahsildar of Srinivasapura taluq.
After the tahsildar replied that information was not available, the applicant went on appeal before the assistant commissioner,Kolar sub-division.
In a surprise decision, the assistant commissioner, also the first appellate authority, slapped the highest penalty of Rs 25,000 on nine officials â€” from the tahsildar to the second division assistant to even the case worker â€” for having failed to furnish complete information.
Upset with the decision, the officials complained and the KIC set aside the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner.
The KIC held that the first appellate authority has no powers to impose penalty under the RTI Act, but held that they can initiate disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty against the officials concerned.
Only info panels can slap RTI fine-Bangalore-Cities-NEWS-The Times of India