news details |
|
|
| SIC imposes penalty of Rs 20250 to Tehsildar Ramban | | 'RTI Plea Backlashes' | |
Sumit Sharma
Jammu, Jan 12: In a latest development of 'RTI Era' the Tehsildar Ramban, who was also discharging the duty of Public Information Officer (PIO), got penalized of Rs 20250 for not responding complainant's application and ignoring State Information Commission's proceedings.
As per State Information Commission (SIC) order 'The Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the office of Tehsildar, Ramban will ensure deduction of Rs. 20250/- from the salary/pension, as the case may be, of Gandarb Singh, the then PIO/Tehsildar, Ramban in 3 equal installments as provided in Rule 36 (3) of J&K State RTI Rules, 2010 and remit it to the Government Account with an intimation to this Commission.
"In case of any default committed by the DDO in this regard, he (DDO) will be personally liable for making the payment towards the Government account, the SIC order stated further adding that thius order has to be complied within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order.
Gandarb Singh, the then PIO/Tehsildar, Ramban is at liberty to file a Review Petition before this Commission for review of this order as provided under Rule 36 Clause (4) of J&K RTI Rules, 2010.' The penalty proceedings under Section 17 of the State RTI Act 2009 were initiated against PIO Gandarb Singh following one D N Sharma filed a complaint on 09.05.2011 which was received by the Commission on 20.05.2011 requesting for providing information and informing him what action was taken against the guilty officer who allegedly had fraudulently issued RBA certificate in favour of Dhoop Devi wife of Chain Singh.
On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant the Commission vide order No. 34 of SIC/j/Camp dated 18.08.2011 asked defaulter that why penalty may not be imposed on him by passing the order under section 7 of the State RTI Act 2009. However, no reply, as reported by the Registry, was received by Commission. Consequently another show cause notice was issued to the then PIO/Tehsildar, Ramban Gandarb Singh on 19.12.2011 and reply was sought within 7 days. A copy of the communication was also addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramban for ensuring the service of this notice. Again this opportunity was not responded by the then PIO, Ramban. D N Sharma had filed an application under Section 6 of the Act before the Tehsildar-cum-PIO, Ramban Gandarb Singh on 23.08.2010 and the same application was to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same in the office of the PIO.
Earlier, Srinath Suman, Tehsildar Ramban who attended the proceedings before the Commission as new PIO on 11.08.2011 confirmed that this information was not given to the information seeker till 11.10.2010 when the information seeker filed 1st Appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority. Unfortunately even the 1st Appellate Authority who under the scheme of the Act is senior authority to the PIO did not pass the order adjudicating the 1st Appeal.
As the State RTI Act is almost the replica of the Central Information Act and thus interpreting and adjudicating upon the various aspects of Central Information Act, the Honb'ble Apex Court of the country in its is judgement in the Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 7526/2009) titled CBSE & Anr V/S Aditya Bandhopadhyay and ors has held that dissemination of information is a rule and non-disclosure is an exception and therefore, under the facts and the circumstances of the facts the Commission holds Gandarb Singh liable to be penalized under Section 17 of the Act as he has failed to discharge his statutory duty cast on him as PIO without any reasonable cause. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
