Can you kindly upload them at Directory segment too?
Thank You for sharing. There is no policy Col Kurup which restrict sharing such documents at RTI India.
I think I should come out with the background ofthis issue for information of others.. One year back the SIC,Kerala had stated in a Press Conference that he had impossed penelties amounting to Rs.1,84,750/-in a total of 17 cases since his inception. I had asked the PIO, SIC the details. He promptly provided it. Next I asked for a copy of the treasury remittance receipt from the PIOs of the first two cases concerning penalties of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.14,750/- impossed on them by SIC. First PIO replied that the penalty has been canceled by the SIC himself . In the second case the PIO replied me that the penalty has been stayed by the High Court.
I had realised that incurring heavy expenditure to get a stay of Rs.14,750/- is not economically viable. This made me file my application seeking the information detailed above. The above documents speak by itself. What I could not follow is the reason for the SIC to accept the plea that the public authority or the PIO himself is not aware of his date of retirement .i.e., date of birth. One had to add only 55 years to know the date of retirement. This information is known to him and readily available in the Service Book held by his office also. What I suspect is that the PIO, an Additional Secretary to Government might be in the IAS Rank assignee's waiting list. In case he get promotion his age of retirement will be 60 and otherwise he has to retire at 55. This information must be with the department he has transferred.Part- (e) of my application. Anyway let us wait and see.
Well done Col. Hats off to U.
It takes each of us to make difference for all of us.
The PIO has furnished the information. The reply is a typical example of the extend to which a PIO can go in furnishing MISLEADING information. I have given a feed-back report to the SIC the misleading nature of the information provided. This reply is given below.
x x x x x
The information provided by the SPIO is misleading in terms of Section 18(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act on following counts & amount to non-provision of full information
(a) The information asked at serial (a) is “Who has approached the High Court for
obtaining above stay ? The government or the penalized SPIO “ ?The information
furnished is “ Smt.KK Ramani, State Public Information Officer &Additional
Secretary to Government, approached the High Court” This is misleading. It does
not provide the specific information as to whether the government or penalized
SPIO approached the High Court. It conveys that “Smt ........” (the penalized
SPIO) and “ SPIO & Additional Secretary to government (means part of Govern-
ment),both approached the High Court.
(b) The information asked at serial (b) is “ Who has borne the expenditure for obtaining the stay order including the Advocate fee“ ? The information furnished is “ The State Public Information Officer, Home Department ” The SPIO neither has been allotted any government fund for this nor has any financial power to incur/bear expenditure incured due to negligence of her own duties. The SPIO being incapable to bear the expenditure from government fund the information provided is misleading and false
(c )The information asked at serial (c ) is “ Was the absence of the penalized SPIO from office in connection with this suit was treated as duty or leave” ? The information furnished is that “ SPIO was not absent in the office in connection with the suit ”.The information given is misleading as this reply can be interpreted as “the absence of the penalized SPIO from office in connection with suit was treated as leave” also.
(d)The information furnished above are prima-facie misleading with intend to obviate
furnishing the correct reply as to who has borne the legal expenditure involved in
obtaining the stay from High Court to the penalty imposed on Smt........i who
was performing duties of SPIO. Is it borne by government or by her in person ?.
(e)It is a mockery on the RTI Act to claim that when the SIC award penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act it is on the appointment of PIO and not the person holding that appointment. If that is true, when the court award imprisonment of a person holding the appointment, the appointment is to be imprisoned and not the person holding the appointment which is not possible..
(f) It does not need any explanation that when the SIC award penalties to the person holding the appointment of PIO he has no choice but to state the name followed by the appointment as all the PIOs are holding another appointment also and it is incumbent on the SIC to indicate that the penalty was awarded to the person for the dereliction/ negligence of duties connected with the appointment of PIO only and not the other appointment..
In view of the above it is requested that Smt. ........, who has been awarded the
Penalty connected with her duties of SPIO may please be directed to furnish the information sought as this issue is of public interest. The concept of an SIC awarding punishment to government for the dereliction of duties by one of its public servants does not spell sense.
x x x x
Now I have to waite and see how the SIC react to such a type of reply. If he is accepting the concept of government paying the expenses by defending the erring SPIOs every PIO who is awarded a penalty is likely to go the High Court at government expenses. Pleaase see the type of reply emerge from the Additional Secretary to Government of the Secretariat where the present SIC was the Chief Secretary till 30 September 2005.
Last edited by colnrkurup; 07-06-08 at 01:49 PM.
No Doubt, you have been outwitted by the Public Information Officer to some extent.
Let see how this event unfolds.
You are right Mr.Sidharth leaving me high and dry. This teaches us a lesson. While framing application in such issues think the possible answers that can be furnished by PIO to evade giving the expected information. I had sent the reply to the SIC in his e-mail ID published in his orders as well as in his web (email@example.com). It bounced. I had sent it by speed post now.
Infact my case would have been of help to the SiC. If he does not sort out this issue, every PIO on whom he award penalty can approach High Court at government expense. I think he may be wanting that way. For records sake he has awarded the penalty. At the same time it does not affect the PIO. Is it'nt wonderful ?
Now that the matter has taken a different turn, a post-mortem analysis on Colonel's RTI questions may reveal how the SPIO has tried to wriggle out of the mess.
Point a) could have been worded as .... Whether the HC was approached by the penalized SPIO in her individual capacity or in her official capacity or at the behest of the govt.
Point b) ....Whether all the expenses in connection with obtaining the stay were met out of the personal funds of the SPIO or from the govt's coffer
Point c) .....Whether the SPIO has availed any personal leave on the said day to attend the court or was she on duty
Mastering the art of framing questions without giving any moving space should be the aim.
Defeat is not final when you fall down. It is final when you refuse to get up.