Info body goofs up PIO figure

**karira** · 11-05-2008, 12:35 PM

As reported in deccanchronicle.com on 04 November 2008:
City News

Info body goofs up PIO figure

[SIZE=2] Hyderabad, Nov. 4: The Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission (APSIC) has contradicted itself by giving out different numbers of public information officers (PIO) who were penalised and against whom disciplinary action was taken. Penality and disciplinary actions come under different sections of the RTI Act. In a recent answer sheet provided by the APSIC, it said that one PIO was penalised till August, 2008 while no disciplinary action was taken against anyone. In another answer sheet given to the same appellant, the commission says that it took disciplinary action against one PIO.

K. Yadagiri Reddy of the Mandal Revenue Office, Balanagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district was the only PIO to be penalised. The second answer sheet clearly said that there was a disciplinary action against any PIO. In a question to the APIC regarding the total number of disciplinary actions taken under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, based on second appeals, the answer was given as one.

"This is unfortunate. I hoped to get correct information when I asked something from the APSIC. However, the answer sheet has confused me," said the appellant who got two different sets of answers for two separate applications filed at the APSIC. Moreover, the penalty, which was imposed in January 2008 was recovered only in September 2008, a substantial interval of eight months in between.

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

**sandeepbaheti** · 11-05-2008, 02:29 PM

Sponsorer

In another answer sheet given to the same appellant, the commission says that it took disciplinary action against one PIO.

SIC can only recommend action and not itself take disciplinary action. I'm sure the SIC did not use these words. This is another example of media's ignorance about RTI Act. And what does the media mean by "answer sheet"? Is this some kind of an examination?

Karira Sir,
If I am not wrong, aren't you the appellant? Why not file appeal for misleading information?

**karira** · 11-05-2008, 04:45 PM

Already filed 3 First Appeals:

1. One for no reply - one application asking number of days IC's and CIC attended office,
"in" and "out" hours of IC's and CIC, etc.

2. One for incorrect information

3. The last one for incorrect information because the APSIC has been publicly claiming that they have received 40,000 appeals and complaints since inception, while the figure given to me is only 6400 odd.