news details |
|
|
| SIC shoots penalty notice against SSRB | | Unnecessary delay in furnishing Information | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 17: As the Services Selection Recruitment Board (SSRB) made un necessary delay in dispatching the information sought under RTI Act by an information seeker from Poonch , the State Information Commission (SIC) taking cognizance of the case has shot penalty notice against the administrative officer of the SSRB who is also the designated Public Information Officer (PIO).
One Gurpreet Singh, a resident of the Poonch filed an appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) on 28.10.2014 against the failure of PIO-SSRB to provide information under J&K RTI Act 2009. The Commission (SIC) during the case hearing at Jammu heard Farooq Ahmad Baba, Secretary-cum- FAA and Shamim Kripak, AO-cum- PIO of SSB on 26.12.2014. However according to SIC sources in-spite of best efforts of the Commission, the appellant Gurpreet Singh did not respond to the notices of the Commission for attending before the it and substantiating his averments made in his second appeal .
The PIO brought it to the notice of the SIC that there is a discrepancy in the appellant's contentions of having filed RTI application on 1.5.2014 or 19.4.2014. The Commission has found that the RTI application attached with the second appeal bears date of 19.4.2014. The appellant had not mentioned what was the mode of sending the RTI application. However, the PIO submitted before the Commission with documentary evidence that RTI application was received by SSB in their office vide their Receipt No: 1034 dated: 4.6.2014 which bears signatures of the appellant. The applicant had sought information under State RTI Act related to selection of cultural assistants district cadre Poonch and the subsequent merit list along with Xerox copies of application forms etc.
In absence of repeated failure of appellant to attend the Commission and explain his case, the Commission (SIC) was constrained to accept PIO's version that the RTI application attached with the second appeal does vary. Similarly, in the second appeal, the appellant submitted that RTI application was filed on 1.5.2014 which was sent through Registered Post. Even these averments were also not seen to be not correct on the basis of documents shown by the PIO to the Commission (SIC). However, the SIC having observed these discrepancies in the appellant's case, the appeal of the appellant was still considered on merits.
The PIO has submitted before this Commission that he had sought the assistance of Assistant PIO (APIO) Ishwar Dutt, Section Officer in the SSRB vide his letter dated: 10.6.2014. The APIO responded to PIO's request under Section 5 vide his communication under No: SSB/Adm/RTI-449/2014/1313/14 dated: 23.7.2014 by providing part information i.e merit list of the candidates and regarding other part of the information, he intimated the PIO to collect same from the camp office. However, the PIO passed the order under Section 7 of 10.9.2014 under No: SSB/Div/744/RTI/2014/1149.
The appellant not being fully satisfied with this reply, preferred first appeal before the Secretary SSRB who is the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 6.8.2014. The FAA had provided an opportunity of being heard to the appellant on 14.10.2014. FAA also sought comments from the PIO before the adjudication of appeal. The FAA has mentioned in his order that the appellant attended in response to his notice.
In absence of any counter by the appellant, the Commission accepted the version of FAA. This version got strengthened by further facts that the appellant even did not attend the Commission (SIC) inspite of Commission's number of notices to him. During earlier hearing, the Commission had somehow contacted the appellant on telephone and on telephone again he had insisted that no information was received by him. The main plea of the appellant has been that the PIO did not provide the information.
SIC order reads as: "It becomes very difficult for the Commission to establish that allegations of RTI seekers if they neither attend before First Appellate Authority and nor appear before the Commission inspite of these impediments, the Commission directed the PIO on 1.12.2014 to produce documentary evidence like dispatch register etc before the Commission to prove that appellant has been provided the information. The PIO Shri Shamim Kripak has sent the information to the appellant vide Despatch No: SSB/Div/J/2014/RTI/ 1149 dated: 10.9.2014. It has also been confirmed by the Senior Post Master Jammu that Speed Post Article No: EE889737105IN stands delivered at GDS BPM Gadigarh, Miran Saheb.
Hence, Commission has no alternative but to accept the contention of the PIO that order under section 7 of the State RTI Act, 2009 was sent to the appellant before he filed second appeal in this Commission. In the other grounds of appeal, the appellant has prayed that PIO be directed to provide the information. But the information as already stated above has been duly dispatched to the appellant which has been delivered by the postal authorities to the appellant before the date of filing of second appeal. Hence the grounds of the appeal are dismissed. In other grounds of appeal, the appellant has prayed for imposition of penalty on PIO, API and also FAA.
The Commission has considered this ground of appeal. The provisions of section 17 makes it quite clear that penalty, if any, to be imposed on PIO or APIO is to be imposed only if the Commission is of the opinion that "the Public Information Officer has without any reasonable cause has not furnished information within the time or has denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information". Hence, the Commission is of considered opinion that the penalty proceedings, if any, have to be initiated only after the satisfaction of the Commission and not on the dictates of the information seeker".
Order further reads as: "This legal position has further been confirmed by various highest judicial institutions while dealing with RTI matters raised in various writ petitions. However, as the PIO has failed to pass order within 30 days, he is required to explain the reasons which prevented him from passing the order within the stipulated time so that the Commission could consider initiation of penalty under Section 17 of the State RTI Act, 2009. His reply, if any, must reach this Commission within one month." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
