Jump to content
karira

Appellate Authority can be recommended for Disciplinary action if he acts like a normal "senior officer"

Recommended Posts

ganpat1956

Thanks Karira, for highlighting this CIC decision. When the last point mentioned in your post gets determined with a finality, our Colonel Saheb and Advocate Rajesh will feel justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advocate rajesh

Mr. Karira Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, You are always ahead. Hats off to you. Because of your hard work we are the boss of our city as far as RTI is concerned . Thanks a lot for the latest happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajub

Karira!

 

This is a post of the life of rtiindia.org! (just like shot of the day, match or series)

 

My RTI life is not more than 3-4 months but what I have noticed (through personal experience and through perusal of various CIC/SIC decisions) is that,

 

1] The PIOs/AAs are "fearless" as far as RTI Act related responsbilities are concerned. I have many many first hand experiences to support my observations.

 

2] The ICs are inordinately lenient towards errants making PIOs/AAs fearless.

 

Your this post has freed me from the frustration that has engulfed me. I was feeling like not to file any more 2nd appeal as PIOs/AAs have so blatantly flouted the Act that I wondered whether they had received immunity from the commission.

 

Thanks on behalf of all of us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.R.K.D.Goel

07.11.2008

This is an excelent Order of the CIC which is eye opener for all the PA / FAA / PIO those are despite three years of RTI Act 05 not taking this Act seriously. How can in 2nd appeal the Suprme Court Advovates appear? when the Act provide that a respondent should appear prsonally befor the Hon'ble Chief Inforamtion Commissioner OR may depute some other person on his behalf. Representing the case by so costly Advocates should not be permited by the CIC.

 

I am also getting this type problems from the PA of Vadodara Municipal Corporation Vadodara. I will take my matters with the GSCIC on these lines

 

We are thankful to the Forum to bring all such important orders in th knowledg of the members.

Dr.R.K.D.Goel Vadodara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great

Thank you Kariraji, for this very useful Post. Please read my thread " Can PIO Represent First Appellate Authority"

I have still time to make 2nd Appeal and will go on for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nk agarwal

Thnks Mr. Karira for posting the highlights along with the order.

Perhaps the same logic would apply in case CPIO acts as a Sr. officer of the applicant.

Statistically most of the applicants are either serving or retired Govt. servants and they seek info under RTI Act-2005 to address their long pending grievances or injustice (large number of Govt. servants indicate the situation prevailing in the Govt. deptt. today). If CPIO and /or Departmental AA acts like a superior officer then this issue needs to be tackled by CIC - IC A.N. Tiwari's decision is a milestone along the long pathway of RTI Act-2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vijendra singh

The IC Mr Tiwari deserves honour this time. It showed that CIC is trying to improve. All the ICs in India, all citizens , all activists must study it deeply. It will have far reaching effects . CIC might also request DoPT to circulate the decision among all the govt deptts / ministries necessarily. Once again I will appreciate Tiwari ji for his good output at least in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MOHANDAS

This is a land mark judgment by Hon'ble A.N Tiwari, I.C. Let the judgment be an eye opener one for the Frist A.A and CPIOs who are/were taking the RTI matters in a casual way. By imposing suitable penalties in erring cases, the spirit of RTI Act 2005 and its provisions can be made more effective and general public shall use the RTI Act 2005 as a powerful tool to derive information from the CPIOs/P.As in the larger public interest.

 

There are a few CPIOs/FAAs, who are/were in the habit of furnishing evasive and incorrect information for name sake specially in different PSUs and the FAAs act hand in glouse with the CPIOs and did not deliberate the First Appeal in its right perspective. Let those PIOs/FAA read this landmark judgment and try to inculcate a sense of responsibility in discharging the duties of RTI ACt 2005 and its different provisions for the real cause of RTI Act.

 

Mohandas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

The PIO and the FAA of LIC, Chennai approached the Delhi High Court to set aside the above mentioned order of CIC.

 

The HC has ruled that although the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the PIO was correct (since there was a delay in the provision of information), the comments of the IC against the FAA as well as the recommendation of Disciplinary Action under Sec 20(2) against the FAA were incorrect.

 

Although the facts and circumstances of this case highlighted the adverse conduct and omission of the officer, the RTI Act did not provide for any of the actions recommended by the IC in his order. Tribunals like the CIC were bound to function within the ambit of the RTI Act while exercising their powers.

 

The HC set aside the comments made by the IC in paras 31 to 48 of his order (attached to the first post in this thread).

 

Some of the other salient issues mentioned by the Delhi HC:

1. To pointed queries in a RTI application, specific information has to be given. If information is not available, that has also to be mentioned by the PIO.

2. CIC has the powers to convert a Complaint proceedings under Sec 18 to a Appeal proceedings under Sec 19 and combine the powers vested in it under Sec 18 and Sec 19, as it did in this case.

3. In this case, the applicant had a choice to either approach the CIC with a Complaint under Sec 18 or a Second Appeal under Sec 19, specially so since the FAA had not passed any orders based on the first appeal filed before him.

 

The order of the Delhi HC is attached to this post.

LIC Chennai Penalty was correct but the other comments were not.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taurus

Some times the ICs are carried away by the case and make some sweeping remarks, forgetting to grasp their far reaching implications. The High Court judgment has put the thing in the proper perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Thanks, Mr. Karira, for appending the High Court order in this case further. This gives the latest development keep one ready while proceedings in the IC to expect what the respondent will bring forth. This has my special thanks for you to give the order setting aside the order of CIS partially. Three cheers for your devotions to RTI activities knowledge spreading in the activists lobby.

 

Thanks to Col. Karoop too for the commentary

 

I am using this information shortly in one appeal before SIC Punjab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andithevar

it is a good lesson to lic of india to obey orders of govt of india.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andithevar

lic people think they all are above law and they think lis is world for them nothing more in the world for them.it is right time to wake up from sleep at least now onwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harpreetdhanvi

wow this order clears many many doubts. thanks to you sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
syedshah1983

Thanks for the post.. It shows the capability of CIC, their presence of mind and understanding of the act itself..

 

If possible, I request all the retired ICs to write a book on RTI Act and how it can be used to ensure transparency and accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.S.ANANDKUMAR

Thank you very much not only for such revelations but also the analysis. More so, your insights are valuable. Please, continue this noble job....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • karira
      By karira
      A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No.285/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00653
       
      Dated, the 20th September, 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Pradipta Dutta, B-141 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110 019
      Name of the Public Authority: Directorate of Income Tax (Legal & Research) (DIT), 3rd floor, Drumshaped Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi- 110 002. DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
      The appellant had sought certain information in the form of queries, whichhave been duly responded by the CPIO and the appellate authority as well. Hehas however filed an appeal before the Commission against the reply of theappellate authority and prayed that the CPIO of DIT (L&R) be directed to furnishinformation with respect to his following queries:
      “Kindly inform why ITOs have been posted at DIT (L&R) even though there is no corresponding post in the same pay-scale at ITJSection, CBDT. What functions are the ITOs expected to discharge at DIT (L&R)?
      Kindly inform why ITOs at DIT (L&R) are being forced, under threat of disciplinary action, to perform the functions of an Asstt.Commissioner without being paid officiating pay.”
      Commission’s Decision:
       
      In its oft-repeated decisions, the Commission has advised the informationseekers that they ought not seek the views and comments of the CPIO on the questions asked by them. Yet, in the garb of seeking information mainly for redressal of their grievances, applications from requesters are filed. The CPIO’s in turn, have also ventured to answer them. Thus, the information seekers as providers have erred in interpreting the definition of information.
      A CPIO of any public authority is not expected to create and generate a fresh, an information because it has been sought by an appellant. The appellant is, therefore, advised to specify the required information, which may be provided, if it exists, in the form in which it is sought by him.
      The information sought relate to duties and responsibilities of ITOs deployed at different locations and the salary or compensation paid to them.Under Section 4(1) of the Act, all the public authorities are required to disclose such information as above. Had it been done by the respondent, the CPIO could have informed the applicant about the source where from he could have obtained the information. The need for filing application for information and this appeal could have thus been avoided. In pursuance of the principle of maximum disclosure, as u/s 4(1) of the Act, the CPIO is directed to disseminate the information so that in future, such applications are minimized.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the Decision from Download segment.


       

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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