Topic Identifier

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 49 to 56 of 62

Thread: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)

  1. #49

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Quote Originally Posted by taurus View Post
    The analogy given by Karira is not acceptable. Corruption is a crime. Alleged lapses in furnishing information is not a crime. In a criminal matter the State may not defend the Govt Servant. But in other matters it has to defend the Govt Servant. Otherwise he will be exposed to wanton threats for discharging his official duties. Moreover actions taken in good faith are also protected under RTI Act. See Sec 21 of the Act.
    Non furnishing of" information in time" can sometime be more or equal to corruption. It all depends on the information. Non revealing/delaying the information may be to conceal an act of corruption.

    I do agree with that occasional/unintentional lapses cannot be treated as a crime.



  2. #50
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Agreed. Of cource the government has an obligation to protect its servants of their actions done ' in good faith' . But maladministration or corruption are not part of an official functions or duties of a government servant. Naturally any act connected with maladministration or corruption cannot constitute an act done in good faith and government has no obligation to protect them.

  3. #51
    Posts
    1,057
    Name:
    rajendra bakre
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Quote Originally Posted by mahekovoor View Post
    Non furnishing of" information in time" can sometime be more or equal to corruption. It all depends on the information. Non revealing/delaying the information may be to conceal an act of corruption.

    I do agree with that occasional/unintentional lapses cannot be treated as a crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by colnrkurup
    Agreed. Of cource the government has an obligation to protect its servants of their actions done ' in good faith' . But maladministration or corruption are not part of an official functions or duties of a government servant. Naturally any act connected with maladministration or corruption cannot constitute an act done in good faith and government has no obligation to protect them.
    When a government servant intentionally contravenes any law or intentionally commit any wrong doing then Govt. has right to initiate in house action or prosecution in the court of law.

    Any intentional wrong doing cannot be treated as "action in good faith".

    "Action in good faith" is only that action which was commited under bonafide assumption that it is the correct and legal course of action under given circumstances. The onus of proving this "bonafide intention" lies squarely on the prima facie erring govt. servant.

    When CIC/SIC holds that PIO/FAA has wilfully contravened the RTI Act it is the Govt. which holds the PIO/FAA guilty of misconduct.

    And when the PA defends the PIO of proven misconduct (by IC) it is the same Govt. which holds the PIO innocent.


    So is it not a strange situation that Govt. is fighting with itself?

  4. #52
    Posts
    44,499
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    552

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)



    Rajendra,

    I think you did not read my post # 31 above !
    Reproducing it below:


    Quote Originally Posted by karira View Post
    colnrkurup,

    If what you say happens or is already happening, then there is a old Hindi saying:

    Kuan ka mitti kuan mein hi gir raha hai (or something to that effect)

    (The mud from the well is falling into the well itself).

    Citizen applies for information - denied by PIO - penalty imposed by CIC/SIC - Government pays penalty, Government pays advocate, Government pays Writ charges, Government also pays transport charges !
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  5. #53

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Mr Rajub,

    I would like to react to your statement " When CIC/SIC holds that PIO /FAA has wilfully contravened the RTI Act it is the Govt. which holds the PIO /FAA guilty of misconduct." I beg to differ on this interpretation. CIC is not Governement. It is an independent authority. Moreover, its proceedings are not exactly judicial. Hence, its conclusions are open to challenge by way of writ. There is no finality about its decisions in this context. Therefore, until it is conclusively proved that the Govt Servant did not act in good faith, it has to be presumed that he/she acted in good faith. Therefore there is no incongruity in Govt defending the act of its servant done in good faith. If lack of good faith is proved, ofcourse Govt can take disciplinary as well as judicial action against him/her.

  6. #54
    Posts
    1,057
    Name:
    rajendra bakre
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Quote Originally Posted by taurus View Post
    Mr Rajub,

    I would like to react to your statement " When CIC/SIC holds that PIO /FAA has wilfully contravened the RTI Act it is the Govt. which holds the PIO /FAA guilty of misconduct." I beg to differ on this interpretation. CIC is not Governement. It is an independent authority. Moreover, its proceedings are not exactly judicial. Hence, its conclusions are open to challenge by way of writ. There is no finality about its decisions in this context. Therefore, until it is conclusively proved that the Govt Servant did not act in good faith, it has to be presumed that he/she acted in good faith. Therefore there is no incongruity in Govt defending the act of its servant done in good faith. If lack of good faith is proved, ofcourse Govt can take disciplinary as well as judicial action against him/her.
    Thank you very much taurus!

    I think these points are worth debating.

    First of all what is "government"?

    Secondly what is "writ"?

    Writ is an order issued by the HC or SC to the "state". If writ is sought against CIC/SIC then it has to be first held as "state".

    Thus, CIC/SIC is state but not government. Is that correct?

    Thirdly consider the opinion "There is no finality about its (CIC/SICs) decisions"

    Delhi HC has held that HC is not reviewing or appealing authority for RTI Act. HC can only see if any person is subjected to injustice by certain acts of commission or ommission by the "state" (the respondents were PIO, FAA and CIC). Thus PIO/FAAare "state" by virtue of their designation.

    Thus writ is remedy available only to a non state entity against the wrong doings of the "state". That means the PIO, as a non state entity, is challenging the orders of the "state" i.e. (CIC/SIC). Then why the "state" i.e. PA should bear the expenses for challenging the actions of "state" by a "non state entity"?

  7. #55
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Rajendra Bakre,

    I had dealt with most of the quasi-judicial forums right from a'Land Tribunal' judged by a Tahsildar to 'Hon'ble Lok Ayukta ' chaired by a Retired Chief Justice of a State. None of them seems having any patience or time to read the Complaint/Petetion/Application of the Appellant. All of them were found coming to the hearing for even admission of the application without doing their home work or at least fully reading the application. In a very short time say a maximum of 5 to 10 minuts the Forum expect the applicant to explain everything and the admission or rejection is based on the opinion arrived at during that hearing. Do you think they go into such details as to what is state or who is government etc.

    Let me bring out my recent experience with Hon'ble Lok Ayukta of Kerala presided over by Justice Pareed Pillai, former Chief Justice of Kerala and another former Judge of Keala High Court. The Government Pleader of Lok Ayukta literally find running the show. She did not allow the corruption alleged government servants to present themselves in the court and allowed to get away with evasive comments. When I objected, her plea was that 'it is the government pleader's duty to represent government. According to her every government servant represent government'. Whan I brought out the objective of the institution of the Lok Ayukta having vast powers,, not binding by CPC etc., it drew no attention. My plea that such a practice convey to the cityzen that the government is oppossed to exposure of corruption also was not accepted by Lok Ayukta. The case was heard and dismissed without asking the corruption alleged government servant a simple question like "Do you admit or deny the allegation' or making them attend at least one hearing.
    Under this circumstances it is futile to go into such minute details which no one bother.

  8. #56

    Re: SIC, Kerala's Orders accepting Questionnire under 2(f)


    Dear All

    Can you furnish the CIC Decision No, Ref etc regarding SIC, Kerala's Orders

    accepting Questionnire under 2(f), by return... I am appearing for the hearing

    tomorrow and it will be very helpful to argue my case...

    Thanking you in advance...

    Best regards

    SENTHIL

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast


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 Apple App Store Google Play for Android