Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Posts
    2,058
    Name:
    Sidharth
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    CIC Issues summons on File Notings


    In a decision having far reaching consequences the Central Information Commission has issued summons to the officials of the President's Secretariate & from the Dept. of Personnel & Training for non-disclosure of 'File Notings' and disobeying the orders of the CIC.

    They have been slapped with various sections of IPC and also under section 20(1) of RTI Act for penalty.

    Following is the excerpts from the CIC's order dt. 07.01.2008.
    1. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there has been deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Commission. What has been provided to the appellant is admittedly “incomplete”. Apparently, the copies of the Note Sheets Pages 104-109 explicitly demanded by the appellant have not been provided and the President’s Secretariat has been persistently claiming this incomplete information as the complete information. Denial of information made knowingly appears to be rather mala fide.
    2. Prima-facie, we are of the view that it is a case of mala fide denial of information and that the orders passed by this Commission under the law have been deliberately disobeyed. It appears that the functionaries in the President’s Secretariat and in the Department of Personnel & Training have completely overlooked the fact that the proceedings before the Commission are judicial proceedings and u/s 19 (7) its decisions are binding and that this Commission has been given the power under the law to require any Public Authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. By willfully disobeying the orders of this Commission, the functionaries in the President’s Secretariat and in the Department of Personnel & Training who have dealt with this matter appear to have committed offences punishable under Sections 176, 177, 186, 187, 188 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, apart from rendering themselves liable for penalty stipulated under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
    ORDERS
    1. We, therefore, direct:
      1. Shri Nitin Wakankar, CPIO, President’s Secretariat;
      2. Shri Faiz Ahmed Kidwai, Deputy Secretary (Administration),President’s Secretariat; and
      3. Shri P.K. Misra, CPIO and Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training
    to appear before this Commission on 24.1.’08 at 4.00 PM and to show cause as to why each one of them be not prosecuted under the appropriate penal provisions and as to why each one of them be not imposed an appropriate penalty stipulated under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005: and

    They are further called upon to produce before us all concerned files and documents wherein the matter concerning the implementation of the aforesaid decision of the Commission was dealt with and processed so as to enable the Commission to determine the culpability or otherwise under the penal law and the liability under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act of other concerned officers.

    CIC's Order is available here.

    A related story on the above appeared here.


    › Find content similar to: CIC Issues summons on File Notings



  2. #2
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: CIC Issues summons on File Notings


    Just for the reference of the readers, attaching a word doc herewith giving details of the IPC Sections which are referred to in the CIC order.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  3. #3
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    CIC lets off 2 officials after tough talk


    As reported on in.news.yahoo.com on 31 March 2008:

    CIC lets off 2 officials after tough talk - Yahoo! India News

    CIC lets off 2 officials after tough talk

    The Central Information Commission has let off the hook senior officials at the Rashtrapati Bhavan against whom it had contemplated launching prosecution just three months ago. The commission had threatened the two officials with proceedings under the Indian Penal Code in January this year when it transpired that they had referred a directive from the commission to the Department of Personnel and Training for an opinion.

    Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah had taken offence at the move though the Right to Information Act made it clear that its proceedings were judicial proceedings and its decisions binding on government departments. The commission softened its stand after a deputy secretary at the presidential palace, R.S. Rana, owned up his error in referring the commission's order to DoPT.

    "The President's Secretariat is advised to exercise greater caution in implementing the RTI Act 2005, both in letter and spirit," Habibullah said.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  4. #4
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    President’s office gets CIC rap for denial of information



    As reported by Siddhartha Sarma on livemint.com on 07 April 2008:
    President?s office gets CIC rap for denial of information - livemint

    President’s office gets CIC rap for denial of information

    The RTI overseer has also asked the Union government’s department of personnel and training, or DoPT, to remove “whimsical entries” from its website

    New Delhi: India’s Central Information Commission, or CIC, has rapped the President’s Secretariat, asking it to be more careful in implementing the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

    The RTI overseer has also asked the Union government’s department of personnel and training, or DoPT, to remove “whimsical entries” from its website and other places in the public domain about documents available under the Act.

    “The President’s Secretariat is advised to exercise greater caution in implementing the RTI Act,” CIC said in a recent ruling while hearing an appeal by S.S. Bhamra, an employee at the secretariat.

    Bhamra, currently an assistant grade employee, was promoted to the post in 2006 from the post of a lower division clerk, or LDC. He says five of his LDC colleagues were given out-of-turn promotions in 2004 through a relaxation in the rules, prompting him to file two RTI applications.

    He sought information from his office regarding the official instructions, which had relaxed the conditions for the promotions.

    Among other documents, Bhamra had also asked for a copy of the recruitment rules under which an LDC can be promoted as an assistant at the secretariat.

    The RTI applications were filed with central public information officer Nitin Wakankar in March and August 2006.

    While Bhamra was given a copy of the recruitment rules and the names of five employees who had been promoted, Wakankar refused to provide documents relating to discussions among senior officials on the basis of which the promotions were decided upon.

    Bhamra appealed to CIC, which strongly disapproved of the way the President’s Secretariat provided information to it and to Bhamra.

    “There had been deliberate violation of orders by this Commission. The President’s Secretariat has been persistently claiming incomplete information as complete. It is a case of mala fide denial of information,” CIC said in a ruling in January this year.

    CIC rapped both the secretariat, for denying information even after appearing before it, and the DoPT, for devising its own definition of which documents could be provided under the RTI Act.

    The overseer asked whether DOPT also had “quasi-judicial authority” like CIC to interpret the RTI Act and suggest action on its own.

    CIC has also warned top functionaries of both offices that they could face serious criminal charges for not giving information to a public servant and obstructing the functioning of a public servant.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  5. #5
    Posts
    94
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: CIC Issues summons on File Notings


    12.06.2008
    Mr.R.N.Das IAS, SGCIC SHOULD ALSO ISSUE SUCH ORDERS TO THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS / PA / PIOs / AAs THOSE REFUSE TO GIVE FILE NOTINGS TO AN RTI Act 2005 APPLICANT. THE VADODARA MUNICIPAL COPRPORATION VADODARA PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS NOT GIVING ME FILE NOTINGS FROM OCTOBER, 2005 DESPITE SGCIC ORDERS.
    Dr. R.K.D.Goel, VADODARA

  6. #6
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: CIC Issues summons on File Notings


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.R.K.D.Goel View Post
    12.06.2008
    Mr.R.N.Das IAS, SGCIC SHOULD ALSO ISSUE SUCH ORDERS TO THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS / PA / PIOs / AAs THOSE REFUSE TO GIVE FILE NOTINGS TO AN RTI Act 2005 APPLICANT. THE VADODARA MUNICIPAL COPRPORATION VADODARA PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS NOT GIVING ME FILE NOTINGS FROM OCTOBER, 2005 DESPITE SGCIC ORDERS.
    Dr. R.K.D.Goel, VADODARA
    Make another Complaint to SIC.
    "Pray" for some of the above IPC provisions to be applied to the PIO for not obeying the SIC's orders.

Tags for this Thread



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