IC MA's cyclostyling / order dictating machine is programmed to do this
automatically whenever the P/A lubricates it.
In an even more graphic example cited by one of our CIC members OFFLIST, it
seems there was an appellant before Mr M.L.Sharma who had filed several RTIs
against his employer ("NBCC"). IC MLS usually ordered that the information was
to be given to him, and even issued show causes (a CIC first) asking why
compensation should not be awarded to the appellant.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-25082009-07.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-21112008-08.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-09032009-06.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-28112008-08.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-24122008-06.pdf
As these orders show, IC MLS made every effort, in his thorough and meticulous
manner, to ensure that the P/A gave maximum info to the
Appellant.
However, the appellant (as per what my CIC informant told me), being upset that
IC MLS was not levying penalties on the PIOs approached Mr Habibullah to change
ICs - accordingly all the matters were transferred to IC MA, who by a single
order http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/MA-09122009-06.pdf overturned all of IC
MLS's orders, failed to give any penalties, and used identical language as in
Mr Bimal Khemani's orders.
The interesting addition which IC MA used here - sure to raise hackles of all
Govt Servants (mis)using RTI - to curry favour with the powers that be in DoPT
for his CIC-ship, deserves reproduction:-
"6. The issues raised by the appellant pertain to redressal of grievances on
service matters, for which there are no provisions in the Act. In the garb of
seeking information, an employee should not take liberty of violating Conduct
(Service) Rules, lest disciplinary action should be initiated by the employer."
The appellant rues that he transferred his matters out from India's best IC to
India's worst IC.
Sarbajit
--- In [email protected], C K Jam <rtiwan...@...> wrote:
>
>
> IC MA seems to be venting his frustration (on not being named as the CIC) on
> unsuspecting appellants:
>
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/MA-14122009-01.pdf
>
> Decision:
> 1. The appellant has alleged that the information asked for has not been
> furnished to him.
> The CPIO is directed to furnish the information , failing which penalty
> proceeding under section 20 (1) of the Act would be initiated.
> 2. The appellant is advised to ascertain the availability of information and
> accordingly re-submit the RTI application to the concerned CPIO , who may be
> the custodian of information . The desired information should be clearly
> specified as per section 2 (f) of the Act.
> 3. Both the parties are accordingly advised and the complaint is thus
> disposed of.
>
> IC MA who believes in quoting the Mahatma in all his orders (at the bottom of
> every page) should at least try not to emulate Gandhiji's three famous
> monkeys:
>
> "Hear no RTI Act, See no RTI Act and Speak no RTI Act" !
>
> RTIwanted
>
