SIC fines information officer

[sidmis]

SIC fines information officer

Rs25,000 will be deducted from Gaikwad?s salary

as reported by DNA Correspondent IN DNA Epaper

State information commissioner (SIC) , Pune region, Vijay Kuvalekar has fined a public information officer for failing to provide information and later providing insufficient and wrong information. The error on the part of this officer was proved when an officer who took over from him after transfer, provided all the information to the appellant.

Narayan Atmaram Gaikwad is the officer who has been fined for Rs25,000 by the SIC, Pune bench. The amount is to be deducted from his August salary. The SIC has ordered that this should be mentioned in the service book and the confidential report of the officer.

The SIC has also ordered an enquiry about why the documents were not made available to the appellant within the stipulated time period. The divisional commissioner has been asked by the SIC to submit the enquiry report by September 5. The order has been given on the appeal by Dattatraya Shreerang Kengar of Solapur. He had appeared for interview for the post of cattle supervisor from the category of Scheduled Castes.

He believed that he was selected for the post and his name was there on the list of successful candidates. But later, the list was changed and his name was dropped. Hence, he resorted to Right to Information (RTI) to
unearth the truth.

Kengar filed an application under RTI and asked for copies of the first list of successful candidates displayed on the board, the revised list, the order by the district collector in this regard etc.

According to Kengar, the then public information officer Gaikwad did not provide him proper information and told that the copy of an order by the district collector about the revision in the list was not available.

Incidentally, when Gaikwad was transferred to other post and MB Bansode took over, Kengar again filed an application under RTI and asked for the information. Bansode provided him all the documents including a copy of an order by the district collector.

Kengar on that basis claimed that Gaikwad did not provide information in spite of it being available. The SIC accepted that claim. An explanation was sought by SIC from Gaikwad to know his stand. In his delayed response, Gaikwad did not provide explanation about why he did not give information and why Kengar was told that the copy of district collector?s order was not available.

DNA E-Paper - Daily News & Analysis -Mumbai,Pune, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, India