When PIO gives wrong and incomplete information

[wagh7]

Sirs and friends,

When PIO gives wrong and incomplete information (Actually information provided by the other incharge authority)

(1) how to use the following rule on that Officer for providing wrong information.
Section 177. Furnishing false information
Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both;

Or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) If one Superior officers gives several Wrong information on some body or about his working to Head of their Office (Without any documentary evidence simply because of revengeful attitude - No departmental proceeding done except his commuication to HQ) What can be done through RTI?

need some advice.


rakatkam.

[sngupta]

Yes Mr rakatkam,
If you have correct information Please register FIR in police station against said PIO under IPC. You may file application in competent court for registration of FIR also.

[karira]

rakatkam,

There seems to be some confusion.

Section 177 can be used by a PA or a Public Servant against another Public Servant when he is given false information knowingly. This was earlier quoted by me as being used by the SIC/CIC against those PIO's who gave wrong information knowingly.
I do not think that this can be used by a citizen against a public servant...but maybe I am wrong (ie I am not sure about this...can someone please clarify ?)

In the second case (information to HO), this section can definitely be used because the information is being given to another public servant/PA and is knowingly wrong.

In the second case RTI can be used to get that "communication" copy from wither the PA who sent it or the PA who received it. If you are asking the PA which sent it, you can also ask the reasons why this was done under Section 4(1)(d) in case you are one of the "affected" persons.
If you are not one of the "affected" persons, then you can get a copy of the document but the PIO might not give you reasons since you are not the affected party/person.
Once you have the copy of the document then you can proceed further.

[wagh7]

sngupta ji,

For providing incomplete and wrong information, can we file an FIR Against the person who provided wrong information. Are you sure that. Sir, Can you explain in details.

rakatkam.

[pankra]

sirs

is it Section 177 of RIGHT TO INFORMATION ?

also as rakatkam had earlier asked For providing incomplete and wrong information, can we file an FIR Against the person who provided wrong information. Are you sure that. Sirs please Can you explain in details??
this information could very informative for all of us

[wagh7]

Pankra ji,

It is not RTI Section, it is IPC.

we have to confirm about the process to be done on what to do when a PIO gives wrong and incomplete information.

let us wait and gather information from other sources.

rakatkam.

[wagh7]

Karira sir,

Did you get any further information over Act 177.

rakatkam.

[ganpat1956]

Dear Rakatkam,
Please don't keep bumping one post after the other. Wait till somebody who knows the subject well responds.

[colnrkurup]

Given below is Section 177 of the Indian Penal code dealing with offences relating to public servants. I don 't think one can file an FIR. I have been bringing such cases to the notice of the superior authorities including Ministers. Ultimately such complaints are brushed aside with evasive disposals. When I found that no action is seen taken, I have used RTI Act and asked the Action taken report to the Collector. The case is still in progress.

Section 177. Furnishing false information Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; Or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both I request some of our learned Advocates in our forum to come out with the right solution.

[karira]

Here are another 2 sections of the IPC relevant to the issue under discussion:

Section 199:
False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence:- Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by
him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other
person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact,
makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to
be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the
object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the
same manner as if he gave false evidence."

Section 193:
Punishment for false evidence: - Whoever intentionally gives false
evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence
for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; And whoever
intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."

I think Section 199 can be applied if the information submitted is incorrect or false or misleading.
Section 193 can be applied if the PIO or AA submit (orally or in writing) something blatantly false in front of CIC or SIC since both have the status of civil court.

But, I think better to wait till some learned advocate/lawyer comments.

[Valkyre]

Hi Everybody,

I asked a rule framing body AICTE for some information with regard to the selection process and got the bland reply in the form of rules already in circulation. Are the PIOs bound to supply the rules or directives if someone asks for how they are to interpreted as the languge used in the rules sometimes is vague and can be used in either way.
Please someone may elaborate.

[sngupta]

Dear Saroj,
No dobout the PIO is bound to supply proper information but the most of PIO`s using this tactics to make a person harashed. You may submit first appeal to appellate authority for providing proper information. If after that you are not getting proper information you may submit second appeal to CIC.

[karira]

Originally Posted by Valkyre

Hi Everybody,

I asked a rule framing body AICTE for some information with regard to the selection process and got the bland reply in the form of rules already in circulation. Are the PIOs bound to supply the rules or directives if someone asks for how they are to interpreted as the languge used in the rules sometimes is vague and can be used in either way.
Please someone may elaborate.

Valkyre,

The PIO has to provide the information you asked for even if it is in the Public Domain (in your case "rules are in circulation"). For example, if you apply for information, the PIO cannot tell you go see it on the Public Authority's website.

The PIO can give you a copy of the Rules but he is not expected to give you a "interpretaion" or "opinion" on the rules. That is not allowed under the RTI Act.

[abhijeet]

Originally Posted by sngupta

Dear Saroj,
No dobout the PIO is bound to supply proper information but the most of PIO`s using this tactics to make a person harashed. You may submit first appeal to appellate authority for providing proper information. If after that you are not getting proper information you may submit second appeal to CIC.

One PIO furnished false information wrt one query and on receiving that the applicant made a complaint under Section 18 of RTI act to the SIC. But SIC sent it back the complaint to the FAA to be treated as FA. After hearing the PIO agreed that "inadvertently" information was furnished. The point is that the same "false information" was furnished by the same PIO repeatedly .
Now my question is whether it could have been sent " inadvertently" ? Then one possibility is there -- the PIO is not suitable for this type of work. If it was sent knowingly then the PIO should have been punished.
As the SIC is very soft and PIO friendly , what should be the next step to be followed.
It is presumed that the Hon'ble SIC will decide that the PIO had done it "inadvertently". Though it was done at least thrice.

[nukebomb]

dear sirs.

if you fire at tiger but bullet hits the tiger on TAIL. naturally tiger will not fall . fire again. again and again till you hit the HEAD. this is the way to hunt the tiger . right ???


sorry sirs . this was only one example . i am strctly against hunting of tigers.

my point is if PIO keeps giving u false information . keep firing rti application to him and to his heigher officers . keep making complaints against him and to FAA.

SOME DAY YOU SURELY WILL HIT THIS PIO ON HIS HEAD.

[colnrkurup]

With the present attitude of the politicians towards RTI Act the PIOs and AAs have gained enough strength to sustain such rapid firing. Following are the extract of replies received from the Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and a senior District Colletor of Kannur District:

1. Extract of reply of CMs Office:

"....But the appellant is filing innumerable petitions and appeals at various levels by misusing the Right to Information Act. He is harrassing the honest government employees alleging corruptions " (This is when everyone refused to take any action on clear case of maladministrtion amounting to corruption expossed with the help of Right to Information Act and the same was brought to the notice of Hon'ble Chief Minister's Public Grievence Redressal Cell)

2. Extract of reply from the Appellate Authority and District Collector, Kannur Ms. Ishta Roy IAS issud under her own signature:

...,,There is nothing more to add to the information already furnished by the PIO vide his..........(This is when she was cornered with request seeking clarification on the contradictory information furnished by the District Collector herself in reply to the RTI request.) When the PIO/AA is struck with no answer this is the style of reply. How can further rapid fire can help ?