Officials fined for withholding information

[sidmis]

Officials fined for withholding information
as reported by Bidyut Roy Oct 08, 2008, ExpressIndia

Kolkata, October 7 More and more Left Front babus are finding the Right to Information (RTI) Act difficult to deal, as they are being fined for stonewalling requests from the rural poor regarding information related to their quota of work and housing under two flagship schemes of the UPA government.

In the latest instance, a block development officer (BDO) was fined Rs 25,000 and a panchayat secretary Rs 20,000, in two separate cases. The only thing common in both the cases was that the officials had refused to part with the information sought.

In the BDO’s case, the West Bengal Information Commission (WBIC) had to call in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the West Bengal police to track down what turned out to be a forged signature.

In June 2007, one Kartick Rajoar of village Neguira, under Purulia’s Puncha block, filed an RTI application with the BDO, Soumen Pal, asking as to why he had not been paid for the four days’ of work. He also asked for the muster roll of the entire Chaitu Bandh scheme for January 2007.
Rajoar waited two months for a reply before filing an appeal with the appellate authority, the sub-divisional officer (SDO), on August 13, 2007. After he did not receive any response, Rajoar filed a second appeal with the WBIC on October 23, 2007.

When the commission asked the BDO and the SDO to show cause as to why no action was taken on Rajoar’s request, the BDO claimed that Rajoar had received an official reply within ten days of his request, saying he had been paid the wages, and that he should submit the fee required to get a copy of the muster roll.

The WBIC passed on this information to Rajoar, who then told the commission that he had received no such information from the BDO. The WBIC called both the parties to a hearing on June 24, 2008, where the BDO produced the original office copy of the reply purportedly given to Rajoar, signed as received by Rajoar.

Rajoar, after studying the copy, said the signature was not his and that the whole memo had been fabricated by the official.

The WBIC had to ask the CID to probe the matter. It was later found that
Rajoar’s signature had been forged.

Taking a serious view of the matter, the WBIC imposed a fine of Rs 25,000, the maximum allowed under the Act, on the BDO, to be deducted in five monthly installments from his pay.

The BDO also claimed the letter had been received and signed by Rajoar’s daughter. Even this was found to be false. “The malafide intentions of the BDO is further evident due to the fact that he has not mentioned of this fact during the course of hearing or during the explanation submitted by him,” the WBIC observed.

In the other case, a panchayat secretary of Hensla gram panchayat, under Arsha block in Purulia district, faced the wrath of the WBIC and a hefty fine for stonewalling requests for information from two villagers, Sunil Kumar Sahish and Gopal Mahato.

On September 13, 2007, in a joint request for information, Sahish had asked for the muster roll of one scheme under the NREGS, while Mahato wanted the complete list of beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojana.

The panchayat office didn’t reply within the stipulated time of 30 calendar days and Sahish and Mahato filed an appeal with the BDO.
Though the BDO is not the appellate authority for gram Panchayats, he ordered that the secretary pass on the information by November 21, 2007.
Sahish and Mahato then paid the fee specified for the information they had sought. When nothing happened, they moved the WBIC, which asked the panchayat secretary to show cause for the delay. The secretary claimed in his reply that the two had not come to collect the information, to which the commission said on April 28, 2008, that the panchayat should send the information by post.

After another wait, the appellants complained once again on June 19 that they had not received any reply.

The WBIC scheduled a hearing with both parties on July 24, at which the secretary said the pradhan had told him on January 3, 2008, that no information should be furnished to any body in the pradhan’s absence. The secretary, however, failed to explain his silence from September 13, 2007 (the day he had received the application) to January 3, 2008.

The WBIC noted that information should have been furnished within 30 days but the secretary allowed a delay of 80 days, so he should pay a penalty at Rs 250 per day for 80 days, to be paid in four installments.

RTI: officials fined for withholding information - Express India

[karira]

Forgery is a Criminal offence.
The WBSIC should have asked the Government to lodge a FIR and initiate criminal action under the IPC against the PIO.