Jump to content
  • 0
venugopal

Are the Group C clerk responsible if RTI application got delayed at PIO office.

Question

venugopal

My application got delayed and the officer was apparently not responsible but his office assist were.

 

I learned that in RTI rule 20 only officers are liable for punishment under RTI. Then how those clerks can be held responsible?

 

There should be a clause to fix the people below ACPIO too.:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Shrawan

Yes they can be penalized. Here is the abstract quoted from the recent decision of CIC:

 

Whereas under Section 5(5), an officer does not himself have to be designated as a PIO/APIO to be liable for penalty for contravention of the provisions of this Act, officials functioning even at the clerical level and above category of Class-IV will be deemed to be “officers” in the application of this Act. In the normal course, therefore, they would be liable to penalty under Section 5(5) if their assistance had been sought under Section 5(4) of the Act. In this case, therefore, as already held, they cannot plead exemption from application of this provision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
venugopal

wow! super quick. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
maneesh

The RTI is applicalbe to all government personal. The central idea is to provide one window system to citizen. So that the citizen dont have to run to differnt coutners for obtaining information.

The CPIO will inturn with the assistence of other officer will provide information. Inorder to empower CPIO Section 5 subsection 5 of RTI, 2005 make all those person from whom CPIO seeks help equally responsible as CIPO.

 

Section 5 subsection (5) reads as

 

Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Although I am not very clear about "Groups" in the Government Service, here is a contrary decision of the CIC regarding levying penalty on "non-officers":

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_19122007_04.pdf

 

It is not our practice to impose financial penalties on dealing assistants who cannot be considered “an officer” whose assistance has been sought u/s 5 (4). A dealing assistant could bean LDC or a UDC, which would put him in class III employees, or an Assistant who is a class II non-gazetted employee. We cannot, therefore, hold such an official liable u/s 5 (5) of the RTI Act. It is the officer who is so liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
SNEHAL SHAH
Yes they can be penalized. Here is the abstract quoted from the recent decision of CIC:

 

SIR, this is beautiful. can you please give me the order no or link? I need this judgement in one of my appeal.

 

snehal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
SIR, this is beautiful. can you please give me the order no or link? I need this judgement in one of my appeal.

 

snehal

 

Snehal,

 

The link is available just above the quote...in light green colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
SNEHAL SHAH

Ooops..

 

Sorry, I missed it..!

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
Answer this question...

×   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

    • maneesh
      By maneesh
      Days after receiving flak for restrictive use of the penalty clause, the Central Information Commission on Thursday levied maximum penalty under RTI Act against registrar of Benaras Hindu University.
       
      The commission found the Principal Information Officer (in this case the registrar) guilty of denying information to the applicant Dhananjay Tripathi, who sought the inquiry report into the death of his friend Yogesh Roy. A penalty of Rs 25,000 has been imposed.
       
      For the first time, the CIC invoked the penalty clause against the official who was not the original PIO. A junior level official was earlier the PIO but during the hearing of the case the university informed that the registrar is assisting the PIO in the case. Therefore, under the RTI Act, he became liable for punishment as an official senior of the original PIO.
       
      By imposing the maximum penalty allowed under RTI Act, the commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny the information requested without giving any justification as to how these provisions are applicable is “simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information”. The CIC had earlier warned BHU in this regard.
       
      When even after a full bench hearing in presence of BHU Vice Chancellor Punjab Singh, the information was denied to Tripathi, the penalty clause was invoked.
      On Thursday, the Information Commissioner OP Kejriwal also asked the university to provide the copy of the inquiry report to Tripathi within a week.
       
      Roy had allegedly died due to medical negligence and the report is believed to have found merit in this view. However, the university debunked the report that it was not according to the terms of reference. That was done after Tripathi sought a copy of the report under RTI Act earlier this year.
       
      The CIC is also expected to issue an order into the inquiry conducted on the allegation of the application that he was discriminated by BHU for filing the application. Tripathi had alleged that he was denied promotion to the next class on malafide grounds.
       
      CIC sources said that the inquiry officer has finalized its report and an order can be expected on that by end of this week.
       
      RTI: CIC levies max penalty against BHU registrar : HindustanTimes.com
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      The Central Information Commission (CIC) has asked Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay Rs 1,750 as fine after its Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to respond to a petition filed under the Right to Information Act within the stipulated seven days.
       
       
      Holding DDA guilty of taking a ‘dismissive attitude’, the CIC Bench headed by Chief Information Commissioner ordered it to deduct the fine amount from the salary of the erring PIO who did not give information regarding transfer of lease hold rights to the allottees of certain plots.
       
      “This information could have been provided within days of the application, instead of the months that it has taken,” it said, asking DDA to provide information in a week to applicant Pawan Kumar Jain. Terming the information sought by Jain as specific and simple, the CIC said last week that “The supply of the information cannot be circumvented by supplying a copy of the file, which in itself may or may not contain the information sought”.
       
      Considering the apology of the PIO that delay was caused due to heavy work pressure, the Commission said that “The admission makes the PIO liable to penalty... as per provisions of RTI Act”.
       
      Jain had submitted the application to the PIO on October 24 last year seeking information on the stage at which DDA transfers the lease hold and ownership rights to an allottee.
      He approached the DDA chief when no response was forthcoming, but this did not help. Eventually, he wrote to the CIC, which not only allowed his appeal but also penalised DDA for the delay and asked it to provide information in a week’s time.
       
      (Source: The Tribune, Dec.11, 2006)
       
      (I observe a key ruling in this news report, that I have highlighted for the members of the RTI community--Ganpat)

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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