news details |
|
|
| CIC terms Shopian ACD an impediment to promote transparency in admn, imposes Rs 25,000 as penality | | | early times report
JAMMU, May 11: Chief information commissioner (CIC), J&K, G R Sufi today said that assistant commissioner development (ACD), Shopian, Rafiq Ahmad Fafoo had proved to be an impediment to promote transparency and accountability in the administration, while imposing a penality of Rs 25,000 on him.
He observed that under the facts and circumstances, this was a fit case to invoke section 17 of the Right to Information Act because by consistently failing to implement the Act, the ACD had proved to be an impediment to promote transparency and accountability in the administration.
"Thus by bringing the erring and defaulting ACD under the ambit of section 17 of the Act, the intention and aim of the legislature expressed in its preamble was fulfilled. The penalty of Rs 25,000 is accordingly imposed on him," the CIC said.
His directive came in a petition filed by Abdul Hamid Paul, son of Ghulam Hassan Paul of Dangerpora, Shopian, who had filed an RTI application under section 6 of the Act on October 29, 2011, before ACD, Shopian, through a registered post which was received by the officer on November 17, 2011.
However, despite his repeated reminders and visits to the SCD's office, the requisite information was provided to the RTI activist.
He then filed a complaint in this regard with the commission. In response to the complaint, a notice vide No SIC/ICK/Comp-49 /2011/2783 dated January 6, 2012, was issued by the commission's registry to the ACD wherein he was directed to file his reply within seven days positively but it was not filed by him.
On March 6, 2012, another notice vide No SIC/ICK/Comp-49/2011/3203-4, was issued to the ACD wherein he was directed to appear before the commission on March 15, 2012, at 12 noon at Srinagar along with his reply. This time too, he did not appear before the commission which then issued a direction vide decision No SIC/ICK/Comp-49/2011-32034/73 to the ACD.
In its direction, the commission said, "It holds that the complainant's application filed under section 6 of the Act has been received by the ACD but he has failed to provide the information within the maximum time of 30 days. He has, therefore, attracted the provisions of section 17 of the state RTI Act, 2009, which provides for imposition of penalty on the defaulting ACD from the date when the information was to be given till the date when it is actually provided.
He is, therefore, directed to give his reasons, if any, for not imposing penalty on him. His reply should reach this commission within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The registrar of this commission is directed to issue notice under section 33/34 read with section 15 of the State RTI Act, 2009, to the defaulting ACD for not responding to this commission's notice."
The ACD was also required to explain why the commission may not consider recommending of initiation of disciplinary action against him under the service rules applicable to him as provided under section 17(2) of the state Right to Information Act, 2009.
In order to give a fair and just trial, the commission gave last and final opportunity to the ACD vide No. SIC/ICK/Comp-49/2011-32034/568-69 dated April 26, 2012, wherein he was directed to furnish his reply as to why penalty under section 17 of the Act may not be imposed on him.
The reply was to reach the commission within eight days from the receipt of this notice but the ACD did not bother either to appear before the commission or send reply in his defence which clearly "reflects the disobedience of the commission orders and disregard to the provisions of State Right to Information Act, 2009," the commission said.
The commission said after the perusal of the entire record available on the file and other aspects of the case as well, it was held that the ACD had squarely failed to pass an order under section 7 of the Act within the time stipulated under the Act.
He had also shown scant respect to the provisions of the state Right to Information Act by not complying with the directions of the commission made from time to time.
"Accordingly, the ACD is found guilty of not passing an order under 7 of the Act deliberately and intentionally and hence attracts the provisions of section 17 of the Act which provides for imposition of penalty on the defaulting PIO from the date when order was to be passed till the date when the order is actually passed. Section 17 has made it quite clear that if the delay is without any reasonable cause, the commission is duty bound to impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day from the first day of delay till the date information is provided," the commission asserted.
The ACD may file a review petition before the commission for review of this order as provided under Rule 36 clause (4) of the ACT.
The commission directed drawing and disbursing officer (DDO) in ACD's office to deduct penalty amount of Rs 25,000 from his salary in two consecutive monthly installments commencing from May, 2012, and remit the money to government account with an intimation to this commission. The DDO was also directed to furnish the copy of deduction certificate with T V No and date. In case of any default by the DDO, he will be personally liable for making the payment. This order has to be complied within 15 days from its receipt, the commission directed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
