Dear Mr Sarbajit, My compilation on "Lessons from penalties imposed by CIC" now uploaded and available in the link http://www.cic.gov.in/CIC-Articles/LessonsFromPenalties-KM.pdf This idea was initiated by you. Thanks for guiding in the proper route.
T N Krishnamoorthi --- On Wed, 25/2/09, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote: From: sroy1947 <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Lession from Penalty Orders of CIC To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, 25 February, 2009, 9:44 AM Dear TNK, This is a wonderful compilation, and I do hope that you update it regularly and also generate many more. This deserves wider circulation and perhaps the Hon'ble C'IC Mr Habibullah would consider publishing it on the CIC website for ready reference. Sarbajit --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "T N Krishnamoorthi" <tnkeea...@. ..> wrote: > > LESSONS FROM PENALTY > > It is human tendency to learn some good lessons from the > failure. Some of the inventions like Electric Bulb were come to the > use from the failure of so many tests by Mr.Edison. Similarly, in > the transparency era, scope of learning lessons from the penalty > were opened now. While reading some of the decisions of Central > Information Commission (CIC), where penalty were imposed, one would > get good number of lessons which will be adequately serve the > purpose of educating the information seeker as well as information > provider. > > The following explanations, Reply, statements & Comments > furnished by the Public Information Officers (PIO) / Deemed PIO's > were not accepted by the CIC during hearing on the issue of delay in > furnishing information under RTI Act. > > a. There was a "System failure" and nobody could be identified > and made accountable for the delay in replying to the RTI > application. > [ C IC/OK/C/2006/ 00 147 dated, 01st March, 2007 ] > > b. PIO stated that the applicant is satisfied with the > information and has desired that no Penalty be levied upon the PIO. > Commission pointed out that the views of the applicant cannot be a > reasonable cause for dropping penalty proceedings against the PIO. > [ CIC/OK/A/2006/ 00400 dated, 18th May, 2007] > > c. If an applicant expresses satisfaction with the information > provided to him after orders are passes by the CIC that does not > imply that the complaint has been withdrawn. [CIC/OK/A/2006/ 00552 > dated, 2nd July, 2007] > > d. The statement given by the PIO that the details of how > information has been supplied and also commented that the > information had been sought for " Private Purpose only" is not > accepted by CIC. [CIC/OK/C/2006/ 00155 dated, 7th July, 2007] > > e. PIO was under same sort of a misconception about the > complainant' s petition being related to a grievance, which did not > qualify to be an information seeking position, which was not > accepted. [CIC/AJ/C/2007/ 00 162 dated, 30TH July, 2007] > > f. The Commission takes strong exception for terming an RTI > applicant as an irritant. [ CIC/OK/C/2006/ 00134 dated, 13th > September, 2007] > > g. Ignorance of the RTI Act is not a reasonable cause for delay > in supply of information. [CIC/OK/C/2006/ 00 208 dated, 13th > September, 2007] > > h. The Commission is not at all convinced with the stand taken > by the PIO that the information cannot be provided as it is > Confidential in nature. Since the ........Department had supplied > some information to the PIO, he should have forwarded the same to > the applicant. However, by not doing so, she has willfully denied > information to the applicant. [ CIC/OK/A/2006/ 00617 dated, 7th > September, 2007] > > i. The deemed PIO stated that decisions of Board of Governors > (BOG) are secret in nature and it cannot be given, which according > to the commission would amount to either willingly or malafidely > suppressing the relevant information and inviting Penalty. > [CIC/OK/A/2007/ 00267 dated, 21st January, 2008] > > j. The Plea by the CPIO that delay was entirely due to the > failure of her junior officer is being taken rather routinely. > CPIO's claim that she had sought assistance from `X' under Section > 5 (4) cannot be sustained as `X' was a part of the CPIO's office > and he could not be treated either as a holder of information or an > independent functionary. [ CIC/AT/C/2008/ 00121 dated, 01st > October, 2008] > > k. The plea of a lower subordinate failing to ensure proper > discharge of the PIO'S duty to comply with the Commission's > directive is entirely unacceptable. [CIC/AT/A/2007/ 01138 dated, > 18th November, 2008] > > l. Deemed PIO stated that the RTI application was clubbed with > other file papers and went to the other files, due to over sight. > Further he has submitted that he is not having any knowledge about > the RTI Act due to not importing of training about it and he is > overburdened with work. [ CIC/OK/A/2007/ 00315 dated, 23rd June, > 2008] > > m. Statement of the Deemed PIO stating that the application > received at a time when the implementation of the RTI Act was at the > nascent stage and the employees were under the process of > sensitization with regard to the provisions of the Act. > [CIC/OK/A/2006/ 00699 dated, 31st July, 2008] > > n. The PIO informed that the request was not covered under the > provisions of RTI Act and rejected. The PIO also informed that she > should consult the Punjab Civil Service Rules to know the service > condition and that the concerned notification could be obtained > from the Home Department. A responsible officer cannot escape his > responsibility merely by saying that he depends on the suggestion of > his subordinate staff. A senior and responsible officer has to > apply his mind independently and take the appropriate final > decision and he cannot blindly approve the decisions of his > subordinate staff. If the decision of the subordinate staff is to > be approved in such a fashion, then what is the need of the senior > officer? [ CIC/OK/A/2006/ 00448 dated, 31st July, 2008] > > o. The respondent explained that she was only an acting > Principal and that the regular Principal had gone abroad and > directed principal not to take any action on important matters till > she returned. The commission finds this explanation totally > unacceptable. > [CIC/OK/A/2007/ 00013 dated, 23rd June, 2008] > > p. The respondent stated that the published procedure > containing the rules of their department laying down that such > information may be treated as confidential. They were bound by the > rules contained in their published procedure. It has been very > clearly mentioned in Section 22 of the RTI Act that the Act will > prevail over other laws, whichever, there is any in consistency > between the RTT Act and other laws. . The commission look grave > objection to the stand of the respondents. [ CIC/OK/A/2007/ 00961 > dated, 23rd June, 2008] > > q. Respondent stated that the month-long strike by the non- > teaching staff cause for the delay. Delay in providing information > more than 6 month not accepted. Further The respondents stated that > as it was not clear as to who were the custodian of the > information, the application was transferred from one Department to > another. The same was not accepted. [ CIC/OK/C/2007/ 00197 > dated, 21st January, 2009] > > r. The PIO submitted that in the month of January & February, > the employees of the University were on strike and for that reason, > the official functioning of the University was completely dislocated > and RTI application unattended till July, 2007. Commission not > accepted the delay for more than four month, after the end of the > strike. [ CIC/OK/A/2007/ 00980 dated, 18th August, 2008] > > s. The public information officer stated that there was no > deliberate intention to delay the matter, But wanted to take the > entire matter to in logical conclusion. The board regrets for this > delay and gives an unconditional apology for the same. Commission > not agreed for six months delay. [ CIC/OIC/A/2006/ 00727 Dtd. > 18.07.2008 ] > > t. PIO stated that he was in touch with the railway board and > since the necessary clarification were yet to be received from the > railway board; the information could not be supplied to the > applicant. The explanation not accepted by the commission and > applicant should have been informed about the status /progress of > his application. [CIC/OIC/C/2006/ 00160/ Dated 3rd September 2007] > > u. The PIO%2 Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
