Tab Content
  • karira's Avatar
    18 Hours Ago
    Have you ever been to Chaibasa, Jharkhand ? If no, then how did you get a Driving Licence from there ?
    11 replies | 492 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    18 Hours Ago
    Please read the following (and also visit ALL the links given in the various posts in the threads): http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/11536-applicability-procedure-regarding-sec-11-third-party.html http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/292-rights-third-party-under-rti-act.html http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/11536-applicability-procedure-regarding-sec-11-third-party-3.html http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/81575-new-file-added-delhi-hc-judgment-sec.html
    12 replies | 305 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    Why do you need to file a RTI for this ? Isn't the Bank branch giving you all the details, by simply asking them ?
    5 replies | 115 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    If you so wish, you can draft an RTI application and upload it in this thread (as an "attachment" to your post) for our helpful members to guide you further. You can delete (or mask) the personal details, etc.
    4 replies | 156 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    Please read some of the threads in the following search results: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=patta%20land%20tamil%20nadu%20chennai%20site%3Awww.rtiindia.org (NOTE: There are many pages of results !)
    6 replies | 141 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    Let them do what they want and also transfer to whomsoever they want. You just file a first appeal with the FAA of the first PIO , after the expiry of 30 days from the date of your RTI application. You can add another few days for postal delays. No information within a period of 30 days is termed as "deemed denial" of information. So your only ground in first appeal will be "deemed denial" of information by the PIO. Another suggestion is NOT to visit the offices/officers/PIOs in connection with your RTI application. Everything should be written and stop talking to them about your RTI. Verbal words have ZERO value in the RTI process.
    5 replies | 126 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    You should be given the copy of the draft report. File a first appeal within 30 days of the denial of the PIO. Give the citations mentioned by others in this post.
    4 replies | 206 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    No, it is not mandatory to attend first appeal. If you have put everything in writing in the first appeal, given all grounds for appeal and also given the prayers clearly, the FAA should be able to decide based on records. However, this in theory.....it is always better to be practical and attend the first appeal hearing in person to put forward your arguments. The personal presence not only put pressure on the PIO/FAA, but also ensures that all your points are considered during the first appeal. The chances of success increase dramatically, if you are personally present during first (or second) appeal hearings. The other point you have to consider is the considerable delay in the SIC / CIC where you will have to file the second appeal. Waiting times are more than a year. So, better to resolve the issue at the FAA level. If the information is important for you and you need to get it fast, then better to attend the hearing.
    5 replies | 214 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    19 Hours Ago
    Please go through some of the threads in the following search results: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rti%20for%20patta%20tamil%20nadu%20site%3Awww.rtiindia.org (NOTE: There are many pages of results and also check the links given in those posts)
    6 replies | 217 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    Also read the letter posted here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/128176-cic-reforms-inside-story-indispensable-joint-secretaries-new-post.html
    13 replies | 526 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    The RTI application fee (Rs 10 for Central Government) varies from state to state and is also different for Courts and Legislatures. Please check the Guide section for the correct application fees applicable in your case: Guide
    2 replies | 101 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    From an email received from Mr R K Jain CIC Reforms – Inside Story of indispensable Joint Secretaries turning out to be manipulators Please find attached a file containing various administrative and judicial reforms suggested to tone up the working of the CIC particularly in view of the ongoing conspiracies and circulation of the name of a junior Commissioner for appointment as a Chief Information Commissioner against the established practices and conventions. The atmosphere in CIC has been polluted due to the sponsored news appearing in the media every now and then and even dragging name of the family members of senior most Commissioner. CIC for the first time, is tasting such mud slinging which is common whenever a senior position is to be filled in Police Department. Being a well wisher of the institution, we are suggesting some reforms at this delicate juncture so that CIC continues to carry on its usual business in larger public interest. With kind regards, R. K. Jain Convenor - RTI Legal Aid Society
    0 replies | 208 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    Yes, send hard copies to Chief Information Commissioner, and also The Secretary of the Commission.
    13 replies | 526 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Sorry, missed them earlier. Will upload them later today.
    4 replies | 276 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    karira replied to a thread RTI Point of View: Can every SHO be SPIO under the RTI Act 2005 in RTI in Media
    Give examples of other States where the SHO of each police station is a PIO. Or even the Income Tax department, where each AO (ITO or AC) is the PIO for that ward/circle.
    5 replies | 302 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    The previous CAG had also demanded the same right: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/56910-cags-right-information-weak.html Earlier, CAG had requested the Lok Sabha Secretariat to exempt its report on Cola Block allocation, from the purview of RTI Act 2005: https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/114414-new-delhi-howzzat-cag-seeks-exemption-rti.html
    2 replies | 154 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    My experience is that whenever there is a "fire" reported in ANY government office, the most likely cause is the need to destroy some records. If you check, most big scams in the country, have had records destroyed by fire somewhere.
    17 replies | 574 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Please also read some of the threads in the following search results: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=draft%20rti%20ration%20shop%20site%3Awww.rtiindia.org NOTE: There are many pages of results !
    18 replies | 618 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    karira replied to a thread Driving Licence in Ask for RTI Query
    This issue has been discussed several times on the portal. Please read some of the threads in the following search results: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=monocular%20driving%20site%3Awww.rtiindia.org (NOTE: There are many
    9 replies | 302 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    There is something called the National Crime Records Bureau Visit the website.....it already has lots of info. Even if it does not have, you (as a Research Fellow) can approach them directly (NOT under RTI !) and get that information.
    10 replies | 255 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    karira replied to a thread Pending File RTI in Ask for RTI Query
    Posters query is : That he is filing RTIs about pending files or pending decisions but he is not successful...so he wants to know where is he making a mistake. ============ The best solution is to ONLY ask for "inspection" of the relevant file at the first stage. In your RTI application, you mention that at the end of the inspection, you will take certain photocopies of some pages on payment of the prescribed charges. Then inspect the file and read all pages - specially the file notings - very carefully. That will give you the correct position as to why the file is pending at some place. Or at least give you a clue regarding the real reason for the pendency. If it is pending for no reason, then you can lodge a formal complaint to the senior officer of the person with whom the file is pending - or still better, directly confront the officer with whom the file is pending, along with the papers in your hand (which obtained after inspection).
    15 replies | 539 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    This is only a online discussion forum on the RTI Act 2005. We do not have any toll free number. All discussions take place on an open forum only. If you have any RTI related query, please feel free to post it here.
    2 replies | 129 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    Who is behind the CBI closure report in Satish Shetty murder case? Sandeep Shetty alleges an invisible hand of a minister behind the filing of closure report in his brother and RTI activist Satish Shetty’s murder case. The case handled by CBI since last four years was coming to a near conclusion when all of a sudden the agency filed closure report In a suspicious and strange turn of events, after four years of investigations the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), suddenly filed a closure report in the Satish Shetty murder case on 11th August. CBI investigations led to a 10,000 page report; several trips abroad by the investigative agencies and almost zeroing on 13 culprits, which were giving an indication about solving the murder case of the Right to Information (RTI) activist. The CBI spokesperson on Monday told the media that the closure has been filed at the Wadgaon-Maval court as it could not find sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused persons. Just to recall, the 13 accused persons were named by slain RTI activist Satish Shetty in a land grab case along the Pune-Mumbai expressway through forging of documents, in a first information report (FIR) lodged by him at the Talegaon police station in October 2009. The names included the high profile owner of Ideal Road Builders (IRB), Virendra Mhaiskar, who is close to several top notch politicians of Maharashtra, as well as a sub-registrar and others. It has been alleged that the subsequent brutal murder of Shetty on 13 February 2010, was closely linked to his lodging of his FIR of October 2009. In fact, the CBI stuck to this FIR as the motive for Satish Shetty’s murder for a good four years, until as recently as 8 August 2014 and then suddenly changed course in the last three days. The High Court had suo motu taken cognizance of Satish Shetty murder in 2010 and directed the CBI to probe it, which was otherwise being investigated by the Pune Rural Police. It had again, on 8th August, allowed the CBI to open up the land scam case in which, Shetty had lodged an FIR. In fact, CBI itself had made this requisition to the High Court, stating that it (the land scam) might be linked to the Satish Shetty murder and hence needs to be re-investigated. The High Court on 8th August, directed the agency to go ahead with the re-opening of the case and submit its report within four weeks. However, instead, the CBI submitted a closure report at Wadgaon–Maval court on the basis that there is no evidence against the 13 accused. All this in a matter of just three days, that is between 8th and 11th August 2014! Moneylife spoke with Sandeep Shetty, brother of Satish Shetty who is doggedly pursuing the case to seek justice. Here are the excerpts from the interview... Moneylife (ML): How do you react to CBI’s sudden closure of your brother, Satish Shetty’s murder case? Sandeep Shetty (SS): It is very shocking that the CBI should have made a turnaround in three days flat. Where is justice left? Earlier, we thought the local police might be influenced by some higher-ups, but now the CBI too has bent backwards to please those in political power. It is impossible for the investigative agency to take action on its own, as the High Court has directed on 8th August that it should submit the report to it in four weeks time. Even if you say that suddenly no evidence was found, the CBI cannot file a closure report; it should have submitted such a report to the High Court. This is clear case of contempt of Court and hence the closure report is invalid. In fact, the Wadgaon-Maval court has no powers to accept the report, which needs to be submitted to the District Court that in turn has to call me for hearing before accepting the report. I am going to contest it (the CBI action) and it will indeed be the biggest scandal if the District Court accepts the closure report. I’m also going to Wadgaon-Maval Court today to get the copy of the closure report. I am also going to file a petition to the High Court to re-investigate the case. I would be talking to my lawyer for advice. ML: You have directly alleged that the closure is a result of political clout. Why do you say so? SS: That’s because the CBI has been investigating the case since the last four years and on 20 December 2013 it specifically told the High Court that Satish’s murder is directly related to the FIR Satish has lodged against Mhaiskar and others in 2009. Again, a few days back, on 8 August 2014, the CBI told the High Court that prima facie Satish’s FIR is the basic motive for his murder. This gave me hope that the case was on its way to getting solved and the culprits would be booked and punished as per Law. However, what else can one derive when in three days flat the CBI completely changed its stance and said that there is no circumstantial evidence against the accused, who were very much the accused until 8 August 2014. We all know Nitin Gadkari’s links with the the Ideal Road Builders-IRB group of companies and it’s all in the public domain wherein IRB had loaned large amounts of money to Gadkari’s controversial Purti group of industries. Hence, I strongly feel that Gadkari’s pressure on the CBI resulted in the latter doing a complete u-turn unlawfully. Would you believe that any government agency can do such a startling and brazen turnaround on its own, especially when it was sticking to its ground for a good four years?
    70 replies | 11935 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    From an email received from Mr Venkatesh Nayak Whistleblower Complaints and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Dear all, As you are aware the Government of India (GoI) through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection for Informants (PIDPI) Resolution in 2004 to encourage whistleblowers in govt. departments and PSUs to come forward to file complaints about corruption and mismanagement of public funds and thereby facilitate inquiry/investigation into such complaints. This Resolution was passed after two young professionals employed in PSUs were murdered because they tried to expose corruption. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the competent authority to receive PIDPI complaints. This Resolution does not cover the State Governments. I filed an RTI application with the CVC in March 2013 asking for details of PIDPI complaints received and action taken on them. The CVC refused to part with the information citing Sec. 7(9) at both the application and first appeal stages. Later in July this year the Central Information Commission passed an order to the CVC to provide any information on as is basis about disposal of PIDPI complaints. The CVC has sent me a complete list of PIDPI complaints received and action taken on them for the whole year of 2012. All these documents are in the 1st attachment. I have also analysed the manner of receipt and disposal of PIDPI complaints by the CVC for the years 2012, 2013 and up to June 2014 (MS Excel Sheet in the 2nd attachment). The first sheet of the MSExcel file contains the list of Departments and PSUs against whom PIDPI complaints were received in 2013 and up to June 2014 according to the monthly performance report uploaded on the CVC website for each year since 2010. The 2nd sheet contains statistical data about receipt and disposal of complaint. What the CVC has not disclosed either on its website or in the RTI reply is the outcome of the action taken in PIDPI complaints. *My findings of CVC's action taken on PIDPI complaints are as follows:* 1) The CVC has received a total of 470 complaints up to in 2014 up to end June. Adding 38 complaints that were pending from 2013, this comes up to 508 complaints received by the CVC. In 2013 a total of 769 complaints were with the CVC. This included 144 complaints pending from 2012 and 625 fresh complaints received in 2013. However, in 2012, 805 complaints were received by the CVC. *So there was dip of about 23% in the number of PIDPI complaints received in 2013 as compared to 2012. However as more than 400 complaints have been received during the first six months of 2014, the trend seems to be growing again*. 2) DoPT replied to a Parliamentary query in July this year giving the total figures for 2011-2013 (3rd attachment). *The reply did not contain any information about the disposal of these cases*. So, I have compiled some statistics for 2013-2014 about action taken, as well, which are in Sheet 2 of the 2nd attachment. The data for the first four months of 2012 does not open up on any browser on the CVC website. So while the total number of PIDPI complaints received is known for that year the total figures regarding action taken cannot be calculated as the data is not complete. 3) *The datasets for 2013 indicates that only 10% of the PIDPI cases were sent for Investigation and Reporting (I&R), i.e. 73 of 730 cases (pending from 2012 and fresh complaints received in 2013). *According to data furnished to me under RTI after the CIC's order, in 2012, 169 of the total of 803 complaints were sent for I&R (total figures obtained from monthly reports are 805) *This is 21% of the total PIDPI complaints received by the CVC that year. So the number of cases referred for I&R in 2013 are half of those referred in 2012. There is simply no explanation for this dip in the CVC's reports. This is an issue that must be interrogated further. But CSOs cannot do this in the absence of more data.* 4) In 2013 the CVC wound up only 6 of the 730 cases (disposed category) as 'requiring no action'. Data for the last eight months of 2012 shows that only one case was disposed of as requiring no action (data link for the first four months does not open up on any browser). *In 2014 during the first six months 44% of the cases (i.e., 178 of 404 cases) were disposed of as 'requiring no action'. Now this is a very large number. The public in general and most importantly, the whistleblowers themselves have the right to know the reasons for this kind of disposal. I had specifically asked in my RTI application, reasons for closure of cases in 2012- as said above only one case was closed this way. They did not furnish this data claiming the protection of Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act (which is actually not a ground for refusal at all). There is all the more reason why there must be transparency about such cases because only then whistleblowers will have confidence that their cases were inquired into seriously.* 5) As the CVC gives only total figures of action taken such as disciplinary action, award of minor or major penalty or commencement of prosecution, against officers complained against in its monthly performance reports, *it is not possible to know how many of the PIDPI complaints resulted in which of these consequences for the accused officers. I had asked for this breakup in my RTI application and also argued how under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, the CVC would be required to give such data to Parliament when that law is enforced. The CVC representative told the CIC that when that law becomes enforceable, they will compile such data and that there was no need to do so now. I pointed out hat this kind of reporting must be given in the Annual Report of the CVC. This argument also was discarded. The CIC also did not record any of my arguments in its order and simply directed that information as it exists be given. Certainty and details of action taken on PIDPI complaints alone can encourage more and more whistleblowers to come forward. If there is no transparency about the outcomes in each case, then the whistleblower mechanism will not inspire confidence in potential whistleblowers.* *Top Ministries and PSUs against which whistleblower complaints were made between 2012-2014* From the data available online for the years 2012-2014 it looks like the largest number of PIDPI complaints have been against the following public authorities: *a)* *Ministry of Railways* - 126 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, total number of PIDPI complaints received in later years is not known. Of these we know that 32 complaints resulted in I&R in 2012. In 2013 16 cases were sent for I&R and only 1 case was referred for I&R till June 2014. The outcomes of these cases are not known. *b)* *Banks* - 57 PIDPI Complaints received in 2012 of which 11 were sent for I&R. Outcome is not known. Identity of specific Banks is also not known. 4 cases were referred for I&R against Dena Bank, Punjab National Bank, Syndicate Bank and SBI in 2013. Outcomes are not known. *c)* *CBDT &Income Tax* - 23 PIDPI complaints were received in 2012. It is not know how many were received in 2013 or 2014. 6 of the cases in 2012 and 7 cases in 2013 were referred for I&R. Outcomes are not known. No cases were referred for I&R in 2014 (up to June). *d)* *Damodar Valley Corporation* - 17 PIDPI complaints were received in 2012 and 5 of these cases were sent for I&R. In 2013- 4 cases and in 2014- 1 case sent for I&R. Outcomes are not known. *e)* *NALCO* - 16 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, and 1 was sent for I&R. Outcomes now known. None sent for I&R in 2013-2014 (up to June). *f)* *Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.* - 15 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, and 1 sent for I&R. 3 cases sent for I&R in 2013 and none in 2014 (up to June). Outcomes are not known. *g)* *Ministry of Shipping* - 15 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, and 2 cases sent for I&R. Outcomes now known. None sent for I&R in 2013-2014 (up to June). *h)* *BSNL* - 14 PIDPI complaints received in 2012 and 3 sent for I&R. Outcomes are not known. No case referred to I&R in 2013 and up to June 2014. *i)* *Central Board of Excise and Customs* - 14 complaints received in 2012, and 4 sent for I&R. 4 more cases sent for I&R in 2013. Outcomes are not known. *j)* *Municipal Corporation of Delhi *- 13 PIDPI complaints received in 2012. None were referred to I&R. *k)* *Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation* - 13 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, and 2 cases were referred for I&R. 3 cases were referred for I&R in 2013. Outcomes are not known. None sent for I&R in 2014 (up to June). *l)* *ICAR* - 12 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, and 4 sent for I&R. Outcomes are not known. None in 2013-2014 (up to June) *m)* *Ministry of Defence* - 11 PIDPI complaints received in 2012, and 1 case sent for I&R. 1 case in 2013 and 3 in 2014 (up to June) sent for I&R. Outcomes are not known. In the ultimate analysis if the CVC does not find itself duty bound to publicise details of action taken on whistleblower complaints and the outcomes of its investigation and also its reasons for closing a case without giving any reason, whistleblowing will not become a safer alternative to silence for sincere and honest officers. Also, a large number of PIDPI complaints are sent to the CVO for further action. There is little knowledge in the public domain about what these cases were and what action was taken by the CVOs. The CVC has to do a lot more hardwork to inform people about the details of its achievements to inspire confidence. Incidentally, the DoPT has called for applications to the post of the CVC and VC recently. I hope the appointments are made in a transparent manner and the new appointees direct more transparency in the disposal of PIDPI complaints. This alone will instil faith and confidence in the system for whistleblowers in particular and the public in general. While PIDPI of 2004 applies only to employees of government and PSUs at the Centre, the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011 applies to the whole of India except Jammu & Kashmir. All States except J&K will have to identify competent authorities for receiving and inquiring into whistleblower complaints. Even citizens and organisations can become whistleblowers under the new law. However this law will not be of any use until the Central Government enforces it through a notification. This law was passed in February. It was gazetted in May after the President gave his assent. There is no word about its enforcement or drafting of Rules and Regulations in the public domain. Meanwhile the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) is drafting a set of basic Rules to send to the Government for adoption. The Whistleblower Act itself was strengthened based on civil society's suggestions to the Parliamentary Standing Committee that vetted the Bill in 2011-2012. *Kindly circulate this email widely.* Thanks *Venkatesh Nayak* *Programme Coordinator*
    4 replies | 276 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    Did you pay the "additional fees " aas demended by the PIO. Please clearly give the various dates involved - like date of RTI application, date when PIO demanded additional ffees, etc.
    2 replies | 170 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    In the box which contains the post, there is a small window with a drop down arrow - just above "Vote for best answer". Clickj on that dropped down arrow and you will get many options...one of them is "solved".
    10 replies | 312 view(s)
  • Shrawan Pathak's Avatar
    6 Days Ago
    A new poll has been created for the RTI nomination . Please vote for your favorite!
    1 replies | 157 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    6 Days Ago
    From an email received from Mr Venkatesh Nayak: Dear all,The Government of India has recently issued a Press Release stating that the Conduct Rules applicable to the three All India Services- Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFoS) have been amended (readers may please note that the elite Indian Foreign Service is a Group A Service only). The text of the amendment is given in a Press Information Bureau Release accessible at this link:Press Information Bureau English Releases and copied below. The text of the AIS Conduct Rules, 1968 is accessible at this link: http://persmin.nic.in/DOPT/Acts_Rules/AIS_Rules/Revised_AIS_Rules_Vol_I_Updated_Upto_31Oct2011/Revised_AIS_Rule_Vol_I_Rule_10.pdf The importance of the amendment lies in the requirement for IAS, IPS and IFoS Officers to maintain accountability and transparency amongst other values listed under the new sub-rule 1A. However clause (xii) inserted under sub-rule 2B further down, requires the officers of these three services to maintain confidentiality of information in relation to one's duties as required by existing laws and rules. Particular emphasis is placed on maintaining confidentiality and refraining from disclosing information if it may predjudicially affect the interests protected under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. What is novel about this amendment? While many RTI activists and experts including the Second Administrative Reforms Commission have recommended replacement of the Oath of Secrecy which officers take while joining the civil service, the newly amended rules somewhat temper that Oath. Officers of these elite services have often asked questions about the contradiction between their oath and the requirements of transparency under the RTI Act. However, these amendments also raise some fundamental questions. If AIS officers acting as Public Information Officers (PIOs), deemed PIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) refuse to provide access to information in an unreasonable manner, i.e., in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, can aggrieved applicants henceforth allege contravention of the Conduct Rules in addition to demanding imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act? As the AIS Rules apply to IAS, IPS and IFoS officers serving in Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) also, can residents of J&K who are denied information under the J&K RTI Act, 2009 demand disciplinary action against AIS officers serving in that State for violating the value of transparency and accountability when they refuse access to information in an unreasonable manner? Readers may please enlighten me whether violation of the requirement of maintaining transparency and accountability as ring-fenced by the twin RTI Acts and other laws and also the grounds specified under clause (xii) of sub-rule 2B amount to ' professional misconduct' and will this become a ground for launching disciplinary proceedings under the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. These Rules are available at this link: http://persmin.nic.in/DOPT/Acts_Rules/AIS_Rules/Revised_AIS_Rules_Vol_I_Updated_Upto_31Oct2011/Revised_AIS_Rule_Vol_I_Rule_12.pdf If it does amount to 'professional misconduct', can an aggrieved RTI applicant demand action against an AIS Officer who is either a PIO or deemed PIO or an FAA. Can he/she be a complainant or can the Central/State Information Commission recommend that disciplinary proceedings be launched even for a single instance of unreasonable contravention of the RTI Acts? So who will be the Complainant in such cases is the next question. Text of the PIB Release: "All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 Amended The Government of India has amended All India Services (Conduct) Rules,1968, in rule 3(1) after sub-rule (1) by inserting sub-rule (1A) and rule 3(2) after sub-rule (2A) by inserting sub-rule (2B) and these rules are called the All India Services (Conduct) Amendment Rules, 2014. Under sub-rule (1A), every member of the Service shall maintain:- (i) High ethical standards, integrity and honesty; (ii) Political neutrality; (iii) Promoting of the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties; (iv) Accountability and transparency; (v) Responsiveness to the public, particularly to the weaker section; (vi) Courtesy and good behaviour with the public. Under sub-rule (2B), every member of the Service shall:- (i) Commit himself to and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic values; (ii) Defend and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, public order, decency and morality; (iii) Maintain integrity in public service; (iv) Take decisions solely in public interest and use or cause to use public resources efficiently, effectively and economically; (v) Declare any private interests relating to his public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts in a way that protects the public interest; (vi) Not place himself under any financial or other obligations to any individual or organisation which may influence him in the performance of his official duties; (vii) Not misuse his position as civil servant and not take decisions in order to derive financial or material benefits for himself, his family or his friends; (viii) Make choices, take decisions and make recommendations on merit alone; (ix) Act with fairness and impartiality and not discriminate against anyone, particularly the poor and the under-privileged sections of society; (x) Refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices; (xi) Maintain discipline in the discharge of his duties and be liable to implement the lawful orders duly communicated to him; (xii) Be liable to maintain confidentiality in the performance of his official duties as required by any laws for the time being in force, particularly with regard to information, disclosure of which may prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, friendly relation with foreign countries or lead to incitement of an offence or illegal or unlawful gains to any person; (xiii) Perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities." Kindly circulate this email widely. Thanks Venkatesh NayakProgramme Coordinator
    6 replies | 369 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    Once you draft your RTI application, you can upload it here, as an attachment to your post. Our helpful members will guide you further.
    3 replies | 202 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    PAN Card holders address is not given on the PAN card. You can return the PAN card to the address given at the back of the card, under "If this card is lost / someone elses card found, please inform / return to:" Didn't you see that at the back of the card ?
    5 replies | 221 view(s)
More Activity
About clout

Basic Information

Personal Information

About the Personal Details.

Location:
Gurgaon
Your Real Name:
Rahul

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1
Posts Per Day
0.00
General Information
Last Activity
10-31-2012
Join Date
07-27-2010
Referrals
0

2 Friends

Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2

clout's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Last Updated
No results to show...
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...

Activity Information
  • Total Points:
  • 6.3
  • Activity Level:
  • 1
  • To Next Level:
  • 13.7
  • Percent Into Level:
  • 0% Achieved
  • Daily Activity:
  • 0 / 4.35 (0%)
  • Weekly Activity:
  • 0.6 / 30.48 (1.97%)
  • Monthly Activity:
  • 2.3 / 134.98 (1.7%)
Points
  • Points for Attachment:
  • 0
  • Points for Posts:
  • 0
  • Points for Posts (Own Threads):
  • 0
  • Points for Threads:
  • 0
  • Points for Thread Ratings Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Thread Ratings Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Polls Posted:
  • 0
  • Points for Poll Votes:
  • 0
  • Points for Confirmed Friends:
  • 0
  • Points for Reputation (Given):
  • 0
  • Points for Reputation (Received):
  • 0
  • Points for Referrals:
  • 0
  • Points for Days Registered:
  • 0
  • Points for Blogs:
  • 0
  • Points for Blog Comments:
  • 0
  • Points for Mentions Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Mentions Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Tags Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Tags Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Profile Completed:
  • 0
  • Points for Contests Won:
  • 0
  • Points for Registration:
  • 0
  • Points For [DBTech] DragonByte Gallery Uploads:
  • 0
  • Points For Award Bonuses:
  • 0
  • Points For Thanks Given:
  • 0
  • Points For Likes Given:
  • 0
  • Points For Thanks Received:
  • 0
  • Points For Likes Received:
  • 0
  • Points For Problems Posted:
  • 0
  • Points For Problems Solved:
  • 0
  • Points For Solutions Validated:
  • 0
1 Achievements
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 09:43 AM
Started off by making 1st Post
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 09:43 AM
0 Awards
Currently Held Trophies
Previously Held Trophies


About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android

Newsletter Subscription