news details |
|
|
| SIC issues penalty notice against District Medical Officer ISM | | Castigates directorate for not making suo moto disclosure | | ET Report
Jammu, Feb 20 : The State Information Commission (SIC) has issued a penalty show cause notice against a District Medical Officer (DMO) who happens to be Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Directorate of Indian System of Medicine (ISM) . The said officer had failed to adhere to the guidelines of State RTI Act by not providing information to an RTI applicant . The SIC also castigated the directorate for failing to adhere the guidelines mentioned under section 4 (1) (b) of J&K RTI Act 2009 wherein public authorities have to make suo moto disclosure about the working of the respective authorities. One Dr Zahoor Ahmad Tantray filed 2nd appeal in the State Information Commission (SIC) on 21.1.2014 against the inaction of PIO and First Appellate Authority (FAA ) of Directorate of Indian System of Medicines (ISM) for not providing information and adjudicating the appeals filed by him before the above mentioned authorities. Rakesh Shan, District Medical Officer-cum-PIO, Indian system of Medicines (ISM) and the appellant Dr Zahoor Ahmad Tantray attended the hearing at SIC office Jammu on 11.2.2014 and were heard by the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi . The applicant had sought information about institutes which provide training to ISM
pharmacists etc.
Grounds of appeal at SIC :
The brief grounds of the appeals are that the appellant Dr Zahoor filed two RTI applications on 11.10.2013 received by the PIO on same day. The PIO failed to dispose of the RTI application by passing order as provided under section 7 of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved with the deemed refusal of information, the appellant filed first appeals before Director cum- First Appellate Authority (FAA) Indian System of Medicines J&K Jammu on 3.12.2013. First Appellate Authority ie Director ISM , was under legal obligation to adjudicate the appeal within a period of 30 days with an extendable period of 15 days if reasons so warrant. But he also failed to pass the order and being aggrieved with the inaction of FAA, he preferred second appeals
before the SIC in both the cases on 10.1.2014. The FAA Director ISM , sought exemption from being present in the Commission because of back ache which has been allowed. The present
PIO Dr Rakesh Shan has confirmed that the PIO did not pass order in the case of appellant neither appeals filed by the appellant were adjudicated by the FAA on the plea that same type of information was requisitioned by some other person. However, no documentary proof in support of his argument was produced before the Commission. In the written rejoinder furnished in SIC by the PIO, the submissions made were irrelevant.
The SIC order reads as : " There are allegations against the appellant that he is impersonating and is seeking information in different names. The allegations against the information seeker are not an impediment in disclosing information if information is givable as per Act information can be denied only if it falls under any limb of section 8. However, If the information
seeker has violated any other act or committed a crime which is actionable under any provisions of any other law, action has to be taken under relevant law and rules.
The appellant is a government employee and nobody can stop competent authority to take any action against the officer working under him if it is proved that he has violated Conduct Rules. But that does not mean that the right which has been conferred to him under section 3 read with section 6 of the RTI Act will be denied to him. As the then PIO Shri Rakesh Raina has failed to pass order within 30 days, he is directed to explain why penalty proceedings under section 17 of the State RTI Act may not be initiated against him for refusing to provide information to the appellant. His reply, if any, must reach this Commission within 15 days from the pronouncement of this order as already much time has elapsed. Information sought by the appellant falls under the definition of information under section 2 of the State RTI Act"
The order further reads as : " Therefore, present PIO of Directorate of ISM Dr Rakesh Shan is directed to provide information to the appellant within 7 days from the pronouncement of this order. He is also directed to serve a copy of this order to the then PIO Shri Rakesh Raina. The First Appellate Authority under the Act is a public authority assigned with the job of adjudicating first appeals. It is his statutory duty to discharge his duties in accordance with section 16 of the State RTI Act. He is advised not to fail in discharge of his public duty. There are serious allegations leveled against the appellant by the PIO vide his letter No: DISM/PS/565-66 dated: 09.01.2014. He is advised to not to make multiple applications. Under the Act, whatever information has to be obtained from the same public authority, it should be done in one application so that precious time of government functionaries is not wasted and they are not being kept engaged in replying RTI applications. The appellant is also advised to inform the Commission whether he has received the required information or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
