Topic Identifier

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 19

Thread: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information

  1. #9

    Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    BUT THE CIC HAS NOT BEEN PUNISHING EVEN 10% OF GUILTY PIOs. THIS RESULS IN NON PROVIDING THE INFORMATION INTENTIONALLY BY GOVT OFFICIALS. & THIS IS THE ONE & ONLY REASON WHY CITIZENS ARE AGGRIEVED &HAVE TO FILE THOUSANDS OF APPEALS TO INFO. COMMISIONS. THEN COMMISIONS ARE FAIL TO GIVE FAIR, HONEST DECISIONS ON APPEALS BECAUSE OF RUSH. POOR CITIZENS THEN ARE LEFT TO GO TO HIGH COURTS.THUS POOR FUNCTIONING OF COMMISIONS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SPOILS.



  2. Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    Dear Vijendra Singh,
    Please avoid using upper case(all capital) letters in your future posts. In the forum board parlance, it means you are shouting.
    Defeat is not final when you fall down. It is final when you refuse to get up.

  3. Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    17.07.2008
    The State Information Commissioners should also give orders as under given by the CIC
    Friday, January 11. 2008
    IE Highlights
    CIC show cause notice to officials
    Ganesh Pandey

    New Delhi, January 8: Probably for the first time since the RTI Act came into force, the Central Information Commission has invoked penal provisions against a few public officials for non-disclosure of file notings despite its order for the same.

    Indian Express News The Chief Public Information Officer and the Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the President’s Secretariat and the CPIO of the Department of Personnel & Training were issued show cause notice under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for wilfully disobeying the orders of the Commission to provide all file notings as requested by an appellant, S S Bhamra. Bhamra had requested information on the criteria adopted by the President’s Secretariat for giving promotion to a few junior officers. Despite repeated reminders and clarification by the Commission that file notings are not exempted from disclosure, the same was not provided on the grounds that the matter has been referred to the DoPT for advice as to whether the file notings could be provided as ordered by the Commission.

    In the hearing convened by the CIC for non-compliance of its orders on December 27, none of the concerned officials appeared before it.

    Taking a serious note of this, the CIC held that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there has been deliberate violation of the orders passed by the Commission and what has been provided to the appellant is admittedly “incomplete” and the President’s Secretariat has been persistently claiming this incomplete information as the complete information.

    In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said: “Prima facie, it appears that the functionaries in the President’s Secretariat and in the DoPT have completely overlooked the fact that the proceedings before the Commission are judicial proceedings and 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 DoPT 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 under the RTI Act” the order said.

    Issuing summons for their appearance and for production of the documents, the CIC has asked the concerned officials to appear before it on January 24, to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted under the appropriate penal provisions and why penalty under the RTI Act should not be imposed on them.

  4. #12

    Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information



    CIC punished the PIO because pio disobeyed CIC. THOUSANDS P I Os deny information to citizens daily , & CIC/ SIC punished only 0.0032 % govt officials.

  5. #13

    Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    this is only two cases. Many cases dont reach to CIC even. No citizen wants to spoil theire time as they know finally guilty will be left free. No action will be there. After all CIC is also a Govt Employee. It iis the first duty to safe guard the younger brother. The mind set of Administrator is yet to be changed and the freedom to the citizens is yet to come britishers left but left the british way of administration.

  6. Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    I fully agree with Mr. U.K.Dubey.

  7. #15

    Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    Look at the irony of fate!? The PIOs are not threatended of action for non disclosure of any information to the public. The action proposed is only for not disclosing some information about the service matter of a collelague Govt employee only. One Govt employee does not want to divulge info to another colleague of his own only. It is not a question of an individual employee. Two great departments viz. Deptt of Personnell and training which is the protector of interests of all Govt employees and the President's secretariat are taking such a stand. If this is the plight of a Govt employee seeking info about as innocuous an info about his career think about the plight of a common man who wants to know about some infor affecting him!!!!

  8. #16
    Posts
    44,512
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    553

    Re: Two Public Information Officers found guilty of withholding information


    Taurus,

    I personally know of one case where one Government department head had to resort to RTI to get information from another Government Department because they simply refused to give the information through the regular channels. The matter was regarding one department trying to enhance its revenue collection by getting a list of entities registered with the other department. The logic was that if the entity is registered with one department , it should obviously pay tax to the other department. For 2 years there was no response and finally when RTI was invoked, the full list was given.

    The other case was (in Assam), when one Government department (Lokayukta) had to file a RTI with another Government department (Finance) to know as to when they will get office space, budget and furniture to start functioning. The matter went up to SIC and SIC ruled that "A Public Authority cannot use RTI against another PA to dispute/grievance redressal".

    This decision is attached to this post.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by karira; 02-08-08 at 07:52 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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