Please suggest some effective methods etc for the appeal.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> One Govt. officer had to conduct some work as per the High Court’s orders provided time to time from different benches of the Calcutta High Court. During his course of action he did not follow certain specific directions of the Court and number of occasions he submitted false statements to the court on affidavit. . He conducted an election in a Co operative violating specific direction by the Court. It was pointed out in the High Court’s Division Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to direct the petitioner to go to the Registrar of Co op Societies of the state Govt for adjudication in the matter during March, 2004. The Registrar did not yet take proper action and the dispute case is still pending. Some RTI applications were submitted to the State Public Information Officer of the office of that Registrar of Co operative Societies , in which department that corrupt Government officer was employed till July, 2007.The information sought for was related with the sub section 1(d) of section 4 of the RTI Act 2005. As per sub section 1(d) of sec 4 of the RTI Act. 05, --- Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> For example few queries along with ‘information’ provided are appended below :
Did the RCS consider that this was an illegal and/or unethical activity on the part of Govt officer ?
What action was taken against him by the Govt. authority for this type of corrupt activities ?
If not taken , when it will be taken? What was the reason of not taking proper action against him?
The information provided by the Registrar & sent by the SPIO , in all cases as below.
The Officer had conducted his duty as per the order of the Calcutta High Court and submitted compliance report to the Calcutta High Court and the this Department has nothing to comment.
2 & 3. This Dept. has nothing to comment as per above.
<o:p></o:p> My question is if a person did any illegal activity as a Govt. officer under certain Court’s directives and he violated all the directives , but as he submitted “ compliance report” to the High Court , the Govt . Department would not take any action against that corrupt officer on that plea ? Is it approved by the conduct rules of the Govt. Dept The High court did never approved the illegal activities of that corrupt officer. With the help of the RTI applications previously submitted , written statements had been received which proved beyond doubt, that the said officer violated Court’s orders and submitted false statements to the Court. The Court directed Registrar to finalize it. But Registrar did not adjudicate. Once again the petitioner approached to the Court and Court directed to complete the case within a period of 9 months. But till then Registrar did not hear a single day in 8 months. <o:p></o:p> Now the petitioners may once again go to the Court, but my question is why no administrative action will not be taken for this gross illegalities committed by that corrupt officer ? And always the Registrar will provide the same “excuse” as above ( Compliance report submitted to the High Court . Nothing to comment ) In the last occasion information was sought for as per 4 (1d) , even then the Registrar & SPIO did not bother at all.
<o:p></o:p> To make a long story a short one, I don’t know whether I could explain it explain it properly. But as one of our members would appear an hearing of the appeal arranged in the next week , I would request the experienced RTI activists to suggest the points to be raised and specific questions might be suggested for the second appeal.. At last, I would like to mention that previously I mentioned it also in a thread --- Corrupt officer escapes punishment. This may also be considered for the suggestion to be provided.
<o:p></o:p> Thanking all the members and expecting some good suggestions---- Abhijeet
Section 4(1)(d) is the most wonderful section of the Act. As per this provision, "It is obligatory on every public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons" This Section should facilitate every affected persons in getting almost any type of information by framing the request suitably confining to the above provision. Unfortunately many a PIO, AA or even SICs desit to this and does not give up.
In view of subsection 1(d) of section 4<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
In this regard, is it necessary to prove that the applicant is an affected person ?
I would suggest that S. 4 (1)(d) should be read with S.4(3), which provides as under:-
"For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public."
From the above it is clear that reasons under S.4(1)(d) should be provided in such a manner as is accessible to the public.
Since this is a very important point, I have tried to provide a solution. Let's try it.