‘Causing obstruction in info dissemination can’t be tolerated’
*Penal action to be taken in case of non-compliance
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 18: In one more instance of embarrassment for the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has sought explanation from an Additional Secretary and a Block Development Officer (BDO) for violating provisions of the Right to Information Act and causing obstruction in dissemination of information.
The Commission has also made it clear that in case of failure of these officers to submit explanation within the fixed time-frame penal action as per the provisions of the transparency law will be initiated against them.
The case before the Central Information Commission was that appellant namely R D Singh Bandral had sought information on various aspects particularly about how much period an official can be kept under suspension from the School Education Department.
However, the Public Information Officer (Under Secretary) of the department failed to give specific reply to the information seeker and this compelled him to approach the First Appellate Authority but the First Appeal was not adjudicated and finally the information seeker knocked the doors of the Central Information with Second Appeal.
During the course of hearing, neither respondent appeared before the Commission nor his representative and this was viewed seriously by the Chief Information Commissioner Y K Sinha, who while taking the decision observed, “the failure of the First Appellate Authority in adjudicating the First Appeal amounts to denying an opportunity to the appellant to obtain the necessary information”.
“The unexplained absence of the PIO during the hearing despite service of notice in advance has vitiated the proceedings because respondent’s version could not be heard”, the CIC said, adding “under the circumstances, explanation is called from current CPIO/Additional Secretary, School Education Department Naseer Ahmed Wani as to why no penal action should be initiated against him for violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and vitiating the proceedings before the Commission by unexplained absence”.
The Commission has made it clear that explanation must reach its Registry before January 15, 2020 failing which appropriate proceedings will be initiated on the basis of available records and without giving any further opportunity.
Another case before the Commission was that information was sought from the PIO/Block Development Officer Marwah about appointment of Gram Rozgar Sewaks through two different RTI applications but neither the PIO provided the information up to the satisfaction of applicant nor the First Appellate Authority passed any order in the First Appeal.
During the course of hearing, the respondent failed to offer any cogent explanation for not sending any reply whatsoever in response to the RTI application.
“The RTI appeals have been dealt with very poorly at the hands of the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority. None of the public officials designated under the RTI Act have bothered to act in terms of the mandate of the law and have violated the provisions of the Act as such”, the Chief Information Commissioner observed.
The CIC further said, “the failure of the PIO in responding has been further compounded by the non-adjudication of the First Appeal by the First Appellate Authority, which is not acceptable”, adding “the PIO is directed to provide accurate reply to each of the queries raised by the appellant and submit compliance report failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated as per law”.
The Chief Information Commissioner has also sought explanation from the PIO for not replying till date to the RTI applications and causing obstruction in the dissemination of information and contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act. “The PIO must clearly explain why no penal action should be initiated against him for such a violation of the Act and this explanation must reach the Commission by January 15, 2021 failing which appropriate action shall be initiated by the Registry on the basis of available records and as per the law”, the Commission said in the order.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
