Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'file notings refused'.
Found 2 results
In a recent order (interim) the CIC has issued a "Show Cause Notice" for penalty to two DoPT officers and also threatened action under Sec 166, 187 and 188 of the IPC. The matter involves the removal of the controversial statement in the FAQ available on DoPT website regarding file notings. Based on the said statement, DoPT denied file notings to an applicant. CIC ordered disclsoure. DoPT ignored it. The appellant complained about non compliance. DoPT stated that the matter was put up before the committee of secretaries and under their consideration. CIC has come down heavily on DoPT. The full order is attached to this post. NOTE - Sections of IPC being invoked: 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z's favour by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section. 187. Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a not, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a not or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation- It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, direction that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of not. A has committed the offence defined in this section WB-02062009-01.pdf
Respected Sirs, One Pio Refused File Notings Tellings They Are Exempted From Information To Be Provided. When Informed To Him About The Many Decisions Of Cic, He Says He Is Not Suppose To Know All The Decisions Of Cic, He Told That He Referred The Gazette He Is Having And Refused The File Notings. In My Appeall To Appallet Authority I Mentioned That The Pio Or The Information Providing Authority Is Not Knowing The Act Fully And Mentioned That Many Decisions Were Given By Cic Over File Notings. Whether It Is Ok. Rakatkam.