http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes12082008.pdf
Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 12.08.2008
Present: -
A. Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Information Commissioner
B. Prof. M. M. Ansari, Information Commissioner
C. Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner
D. Smt. Padma Balasubramanian, Information Commissioner
E. Secretary, Addl. Secretary, JS (L), JS (A & P), JS (MoRe), DS (P& B) &
DS (PP) assisted the Commission.
Agenda Item: 1 Note circulated by IC (T) in respect of draft Rules
Commission observed that no decision is required on this at present.
However, it may be brought to the Commission after study by the
Commissioners for approval
Agenda Item: 2 Two e-mails of Citizens re FIR
2. These have been considered. Commission found that there is no
request from the accused; hence no action is called for by the Commission.
Agenda Item: 3 Progress on e-office implementation plan
3. Commission observed that the progress on e-office implementation
plan is very slow. Secretary, CIC will follow up with appropriate authority to
expedite the progress.
Agenda Item: 4 Suggestions submitted by Shri Shailesh Gandhi
4. Commission directed that the possibility of adjusting interns against
the posts of Court masters if law graduates joins the Commission as interns be
examined.
5. Commission directed the Secretary to take a meeting with all the
designated officers with a view to assess the functioning of the Registry.
Commission directed further to examine the suitable nomenclature either as
disposed or closure of the cases, that is decided by it.
6. Commission directed that the following procedure may be followed
while imposing penalty and the same may be incorporated in the CIC
(Management) Regulations 2007.
i) Wherever there is no response of the PIO within the time specified
in section 7(1) or there is a complaint that the PIO refused to accept
application, the Commission shall issue a notice to him to show
cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him. In such cases,
the response of the PIO has to be assessed on whether the
explanation offered by him provides “reasonable cause” or not.
ii) If the information provided is incorrect, incomplete or misleading,
the Commissioner shall issue a notice to him to show cause why
penalty should not be imposed upon him. In such cases, the
response of the PIO has to be assessed whether he provided
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information “knowingly” or not.
iii) If the PIO destroyed the information, which was the subject of
request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing information,
penalty shall be imposed upon him after giving him an opportunity
of being heard.
iv) If it is found during first hearing that any of the above situations
prime exists, then show cause notice shall be issued in the notice of
the first hearing only to save time of a separate hearing for
imposition of penalty. The PIO shall be expected to present his/her
explanation in the hearing.
v) In all cases of penalties, a hearing needs to be held where both
parties should be given an opportunity of being heard. A speaking
order should thereafter be passed imposing or dropping penalty.
vi) PIO shall not be given more than two adjournments to present his
explanation. That shall be treated as reasonable and sufficient
opportunity.
Suggestions on the compliance of the Commission’s orders have been
noted. The Registry will examine these.
