Sarabjit,
The problem is precisely the part saying "reasonable cause". By now, we all
know that the IC's loath to levy penalty on their ex-colleagues in babudom. For
example, in APSIC, about 4800 hearings took place since inception till 31
August 2008. 63 Show Cause Notices were issued which resulted in only ONE
penalty of Rs. 5000.00 being imposed and NOT a single recommendation of
disciplinary action under Sec 20(2) !
This is the first time in my life I felt sorry for the lonely PIO. He must
demand a statue for himself outside the APSIC.
Your suggestion of the applicant carrying it to the logical conclusion is good
but difficult to follow for outstation applicants. How many times do you expect
him to spend time and money to go to the CIC/SIC ? For local applicants, I
suggest carrying your suggestion a bit further. After the Penalty is imposed,
wait for the time period given for the recovery of penalty and file another RTI
to ask for certified copy of any evidence that the Penalty amount was actually
recovered. I have a nagging suspicion that whatever few Penalties are being
imposed, are not being recovered ! Compliance reports for recovery are not
reaching the IC and being hacked by your friends, the CHINESE HACKERS. Check
it out for yourself. By the way, your CHINESE HACKERS have not restricted
themselves only to the CIC but have penetrated the less defended (and security
protected) SIC's as well.
As a footnote, here are some of the reasons, which one SIC in particular, gave
in order to justify no "reasonable cause" for not imposing penalty:
1. The PIO looks like a nice person and he would not delay the reply without
reasonable cause, therefore I am not imposing penalty.
2. As stated by the PIO, he has already supplied the same information to
another applicant before. Therefore he will not have a reasonable cause not to
supply information to this applicant. This order in fact went on to instruct
the applicant to "collect the information requested from the other applicant
who has already been supplied same information by the PIO".
3. Photocopies were not given by PIO. Matter went to Second Appeal. Over a year
after the original request was made, the PIO claimed he could not supply the
photocopies because there was no power in his office ! The IC accepted it as
"reasonable cause" for delay and asked the applicant to "inspect" instead.
RTIwanted
