Strictures by CIC gaianst misbehaviour of Government Servants with RTI Applicants

[karira]

In the attached order of IC O P Kejariwal, Government Servants of the Public Authority have been warned not to misbehave with RTI applicants:

........he was treated very shabbily and in a dismissive manner. During the hearing, he stated an incident where, when he asked for photocopies of a letter, the person supervising the inspection told him that for all he know it had been swept away by the Sweeper or the concerned Clerk had forgotten to put that letter on the file. The Commission has no reason whatsoever to doubt the Appellant’s submission: for the rough and crude behavior of government servants towards members of the public and even their former colleagues who have retired is well-known. It is, in fact, an irony that such Civil servants forget that sooner or later they’ll cross over to the other side and join the very category of people with whom they are misbehaving today.
The Commission, therefore, directs the Respondents to once again call the Applicant to the office, go through the list which he says he has of the documents that he wants, and either supply him the information that he desires or give a valid reason (as per the RTI-Act) for not doing so. With this, it warns the officials concerned that in case the Appellant complaints again of misbehaviour on the part of the officials responsible for supplying him the information, the Commission will treat the case as one of victimisation and harassment of an RTI-applicant and deal with the defaulters very heavily.

The full decision is attached.

[ganpat1956]

Not necessarily and not always. It depends on how an appeal is presented and argued. Besides every decision of the IC is published and they are are also aware that every activist who goes through those decisions also makes his own post-mortem analysis.

[vijendra singh]

I m of the view that cic has been escaping its duties.More than 99% of guilty PIOs are not being punished at all.And they are not even answering this querry.Citizens are not getting due compensations.& nobody to care such blunders/ illegality.Big reforms required.

[vijendra singh]

Many more applicants felt like u.In fact her all decisions need to be analysed urgently.

[vijendra singh]

there must be rule of accoutability for CIC.Info commissioners must not be left immune.Some authority must be appointed to check & punish the info commisioner if he is found guilty of performing duties not consistent with rti act spirits.Presently nobody is checking them.

[vijendra singh]

We activists will have now to analyse how many 'strictures' were passed in 3 years of RTI & whether the PIOs got some damage due to those 'strictures' . I think thousands cases must be there of 'misbehaviours' in all the info comissions in country. But not a single pio could get punishment from IC./ PIO's deptt because of bad behavior with citizens. Is it not shocking to alert citizens ?

[mpai]

Originally Posted by prbhat_gen

IC O P Kejriwal & Chief IC always give a very well analysed & justified orders.

Its true that they take the services of consultants appointed in the CIC, who guide them in their decisions. No wonder their decisions come a little late on the sites.

IC Tiwari, a former secretary of DoP&T is very conversant with all major laws and regulations. His decisions are usually based on the matter laid down before him. Most of his decisions are speaking orders, of which some of them are landmark ones. Its true, that in most cases, his decisions have favored the respondents instead of the appellants. I deduce that the appellants seek more of the information in form of an "explanations" and "reasons" etc. which do not qualify as "information" under the act. Appellants feel that the act would solve their grievances etc. Thats not the case, the act can help you access certain documents and information, the use of which can facilitate the redressal of the grievances at the appropriate level. Yes, there have also been many cases where the appellants were not satisfied with his decisions. These appellants should take up the matter in HC.

Manoj

[abhijeet]

Originally Posted by mpai

Its true that they take the services of consultants appointed in the CIC, who guide them in their decisions. No wonder their decisions come a little late on the sites.
I deduce that the appellants seek more of the information in form of an "explanations" and "reasons" etc. which do not qualify as "information" under the act. Appellants feel that the act would solve their grievances etc.Manoj

But I would like to mention that------

As per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'it is obligatory on the part of every public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.'
So , if I ask for the reason of helping the corrupt persons or the reason of 'dedicated' misdeed' on the part of any public authority, why the SPIO wil simply reply -- RTI Act if meant for information , not explanation.
So, please let me know, whether it was at all obligatory on part of any PA to provide reasons or not?

[mpai]

Originally Posted by abhijeet

As per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'it is obligatory on the part of every public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.'
So , if I ask for the reason of helping the corrupt persons or the reason of 'dedicated' misdeed' on the part of any public authority, why the SPIO wil simply reply -- RTI Act if meant for information , not explanation.
So, please let me know, whether it was at all obligatory on part of any PA to provide reasons or not?

You have made a point, but you cannot just jump by skipping Section 4(1)(c). Seek the information on policy matters first and then if its denied, seek the "quasi-judicial" decision for the denial U/s 4(1)(d).

Manoj

[abhi987]

As per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'it is obligatory on the part of every public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.'
So , if I ask for the reason of helping the corrupt persons or the reason of 'dedicated' misdeed' on the part of any public authority, why the SPIO wil simply reply -- RTI Act if meant for information , not explanation.
So, please let me know, whether it was at all obligatory on part of any PA to provide reasons or not?[/quote]

Dear Abhijeet,

I suppose what section 4(1) (d) means is that if a public authority has made any administrative decision or a quasi judicial decision one can question the decision.

For example a quasi judicial authority like deputy registrar co-operative society has pronounced a decision between a member of the society and the managing committee, one can question and seek explaination on the basis on which he has decided and given the judgment.

But section 4(1)(d) would not mean that one can ask general questions or seek general explainations under the RTI Act.