Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 48 of 64

Thread: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

  1. Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    My employer has finally dismissed me from their services wef 16.11.09,probably a reward to more than 100 applications,I exposed not only the ramapant protection of corrupt in the RTI but also their distorted Rules.
    They suspended me under Rules of 1975,held all inquiries under rules of 1975 but punished me under Rules of 2003.Though disciplinary proceedings are considered confidential in nature,they are making propaganda about my so called misconduct since long e.g.Decision dt.12 June 2008 of CIC/AT/A/2008/00097,the Commissioner observed:"At the outset the respondents pointed out that the appellant had filed over 26 applications..appellant is an employee... was placed under suspension for insubordination and misconduct.

    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    Quote Originally Posted by mpai View Post
    (2) The Appellant had filed a First Appeal, but refused to attend the proceeding. The AA had come all the way from Delhi to hear the appellant. Call letters were sent several time to the appellant. The phone calls followed. There is nothing wrong with telephone calls. Since we use emails & FAX as valid form of communication, this can also apply to telephone calls as well. The appellant had admitted to these calls. So what was his problem?
    Emails and Fax as valid forms of communication, are they valid enough to make an RTI application?

  3. #43
    Sulakshan Kumar Goyal
    Rep Power

    Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    I am in a shock while reading all the views about the matter. in fact, a question was raised by my mind : what is the meaning of the RTI in India if such irresponsible persons will decide over the issues without applying their mind impartially? In other words we can say that the meaning of the RTI may limit to RIGHT TO IMPLICATE the public or persons aggrieved by the system or the conspiracy of the officers. I, myself, also find that no department is supporting the transparency of the procedure and try to hide the facts as done in the case of RUCHIKA'S CASE.

  4. Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    I am dismissed by my employer as I have the courage to write about 200 rti applicatiies ons against ramapant corruption,grave faincial irregaularities and gross discrimination .myemployer has punished my on the basis if such frivolous charges as leaving Head Quarters while I gathered information from cbi that the person who was cuaght red handed accepting bribe on 11 feb 2008 against whom cbi recommended major penalty proceedings is still holding his post,as per the newspaer report he was taking bribe,among others, on behalf of the person who issued charge sheet against me.

  5. #45

    Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    cic has travelled out of his jurisdictionas there is no provision in the rti act to take any action against the information seeker, if PIOis not able to provide the information being not in public domain or for other reasons he should have taken the shelter of provisos of the act as upheld by the cIC.
    This case raises other legal issues also right from the appointment to the conduct of proceedings by the CIcs/sics, who are generaly the retired govt. officers enjoying status/power at the cost of tax payers entrusted with the duty to further the implemrentation of the preamble of rti act and to protect the funamental right of the citizens of india but this object will be defated by such orders.
    Authorities in govt. willdo well if they post cic/sic only of persons of proven legal excellence and backgrond otherwise cases of similar nature will be in plenty dicouraging the information seeker to act u/rti act.making rtiact non-existant.

  6. #46

    Thumbs down Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    I am RTI activist and have had opportunity to deal with many PIOs including those who were quite co-operative and also those who were utmost hostile. I have also appeared before the state commission and my experience with the State Commission was not very encouraging.

    I have read present detailed order of the IC directing the PIO & AA to file a contempt complaint against appellant very carefully and also read the related posts with great enthu.

    Since this is a RTI forum rightly majority of the posts were in favour of the appellant and with the exception of the post of Mr. M Pai who apparently was present at the time of hearing and has mainly objected to the approach and attitude of the appellant; all have a rightful objection on the approach of the IC.

    I think the approach of Mr. Pai seems to be a more balanced one. We should not forget that great powers come with greater responsibilities. Hence the irresponsible behaviour cannot be justified on any account and the lines below should not be misconstrued to be justification of any kind of misbehaviour.

    Having said that I must admit that while reading said order all the time I was getting a feeling that the IC was being biased and inclined towards the PIO. This was confirmed when I read the post stating the antecedents of the IC. I do not feel that the inference drawn by the IC that the applicant did not require any information is justified in any way. It is my own experience that off late there has been a mindset created among the ICs that the act has been enacted in gross atrocity with the Public Authorities and as such there has been a deliberate effort to dilute the penal provisions of the act against the erring PIOs thereby sabotaging the primary objective of the statute.

    It is of most importance that the judicial [or quasi Judicial as it is sought to be made out] officers should also be extra careful to remain transparent. It is noticed that the IC was the person connected with the department and in such cases as the judicial code demands the concerned officer should have remained away from the hearing the case. But indiscipline has become the code of the day. After committing a breach how the derogating authority acquires a right to demand the decorum?

    It can be seen from the facts of the case that the CPIO provided the information to the applicant after 30 days of the date of the application after deduction of the time taken between demand of fees and payment of the same. Hence in the first place the applicant was entitled to receive the full refund of the fees as per S. 7 [6] which the AA and IC appear to have totally ignored.

    So far as the allegation of malintention of the applicant/appellant is concerned it does not appear to be the case of the PIO or AA at all and therefore IC drawing such an inferance is not only prejudicial to the objective of the statute but also derogatory to the decorum of the bench as well.

    As stated above if the the appellant has misbehaved as described there cannot be any justification of the same in any manner but then how would one monitor the misbehaviour and derogatory acctions of the ICs? I quote below some of my direct experiences.
    1. I wanted to file a second appeal before the SCIC and therefore made out a draft and visited the SCIC office to learn about the rules, procedures and practices. In the said office a person of Registrar status misguided me and asked me to redraft the II appeal to a complaint and later after filing the same it was revealed that only to save his own work I was grossly misguided and the appeal was the right thing to do.
    2. When I visited to find the status of the appeal, I was shocked to discover that the papers were lost. There was an entry of receipt but the papers were missing. I eMailed the papers for the second time and obtained confirmation of safe receipt.
    3. Again all the papers were lost on second occasion. Again they were mailed and were posted for hearing.
    4. On the day of hearing I found that the IC would not allow his steno to record the operative order or minutes of the hearing. Thus there was vast difference between the actual hearing and minuted hearing.
    5. There was a lapse in providing the information after the AA had observed that the information sought was not provided. Under the circumstances above second appeal came to be filed. The obvious and mandatory order in this matter should have been a penal action against the PIO. But IC derived a theory that probably the PIO did not understand the requirement of the applicant though it was not his case at any stage of hearing at all. This was meant only to pass a benefit of doubt to the PIO.
    6. Then without proper authority the IC diluted the penal provision of law and ordered a penalty of only Rs. 5000/- in place of Rs. 25000/- and ignored the provision of compensation to be made to the applicant. The order asked the PIO to provide the information in the format asked by the Appellant within 5 days. This was the verbal order which was noted down by both parties.
    7. The PIO again ignored the order and failed to provide the information. The AA scared of the consequences issued an official letter to the PIO warning him of having violated the order of the IC by not complying with it in stipulated 5 days time and also marked a copy of the same to the Appellant.
    8. After about 30 days the written order was received from the IC when there were grave and intolerable errors. The order asked the applicant to provide to information instead of the PIO. Also the time limit of 5 days was missing thus absolving the PIO of the lapse.
    9. I requested the IC to correct the order as per the admitted facts of the AA and incorporate the 5 days time limit as originally stipulated. But with no avail.
    10. I found that there is a case after every an hour which lasted only about 10 minutes. Rest of the time was utilised by the IC to invite concerned PIO and AA to his chamber and offer tea, biscuits etc. grossly violating the dignity and decorum of the bench.
    11. I must appreciate the PIO and AA concerned if they provided any information thereafter without getting egotistical by the hospitality received from the IC.

  7. #47

    Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    Ifully endorse the views of Mr. Sekuar that Ics generally are partial who have been graced by the conc. govts central/states to act as such after rtd having little legal sense. Only remedy lies that ics should be persons of proven legal competance and not of persons from Admn. at all.Also to curb the patial behaviour of theirs , a system of appeals to higher benches agaist the orders of ics is required to be developed with in the rti act/rules as provided in cpc regarding revision./review of orders of lower courts ,where information seeker feels himself/herself dodged.
    work in this direction is required to be done.

  8. #48
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Re: CIC directs PIO to file case against Appellant

    Please STOP cribbing and complaining about IC's, CIC, SIC !

    Not you, not your children and not even your grandchildren can ever change them.
    Just by your complaining, the Government is not going to change the way and the type of IC's it appoints.
    Where do you think IC's have come from ?
    Heaven ?
    They have the same DNA and the same genetic make up like all the others because of whom you first first filed your RTI application. In Hindi, they say "Ek Hee Khet Kee Mooli"
    (loosely translated - raddish from the same field).

    Do you people seriously think that a person who for 35 years has tried his best to hide information from you is suddenly going to turn a new leaf in one day and start disclosing information to you ?
    Which 60 year old retired person have you ever met in your life who has suddenly changed his habits, nature and outlook overnight ?

    Be practical and sensible.

    Instead of wasting time, energy and effort in complaining, complaining and complaining some more, think positively of some ways of a counter strategy and tackling the situation.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast


    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 Apple App Store Google Play for Android