Like our Facebook Page

news details

‘Records damaged in floods’, says PSC; SIC shoots penalty notice Info about Vigilance Clearance of GMC doctor 1/22/2015 11:07:34 PM Early Times Report Jammu, Jan 22: As the public authorities continue to use September floods in Kashmir as an excuse to hide their misdeeds , the State Information Commission (SIC) , has now shot one more penalty notice against the Public Service Commission (PSC) which has withheld a vital information related to promotion of a senior doctor (Assistant Professor) of Govt Medical College Jammu allegedly without seeking his vigilance clearance / integrity certificates. Details available with Early Times reveal that one Sanjay Kumar Bhasin filed a second appeal under J&K RTI Act 2009 before State Information Commission (SIC) on 11.11.2014. I.R. Hamdani, Under Secretary-cum-PIO, Health & Medical Education Department, Rais Ahmed, PIO, J&K PSC and the appellant attended the case hearing on 8.1.2015 at SIC’s Jammu office. The appellant Sanjay Kumar Bhasin had filed an RTI application before PIO, Health & Medical Education seeking certified copy of vigilance clearance of Dr. Ratnakar Sharma submitted to DPC/PSC for his promotion from Lecturer to Assistant Professor in the DPC/PSC held in May 2012; certified copy of Integrity Certificate of Dr. Ratnakar Sharma submitted to DPC/PSC for his promotion from Lecturer to Assistant Professor in the DPC/PSC held in May, 2012; Reasons If the said Dr. Ratnakar Sharma was promoted from Lecturer to Assistant Professor in the said DPC/PSC without these two mandatory requirements; Certified copies of representations of Dr. Zahoor Hussain, Lecturer Surgery, GMC Jammu which he submitted for his promotion as Assistant Professor from June 2011 to till date; certified copy of notings on the file sent by HME Deptt to Law Deptt in July-August 2011, sorting clarification in the case of Dr. Zahoor Hussain whether to consider his period of studentship for promoting him as Assistant Professor. PIO Health & Medical Education Department submitted before the Commission (SIC) that their office had not recommended the name of above said Doctor to PSC for DPC clearance, so he was not in possession of above sought information by the information seeker and that is the reason he forwarded a letter to PIO- J&K PSC for providing the information because it is the PSC who had recommended the name of Dr. Ratnakar Sharma for promotion. PIO J&K PSC has admitted that PIO Health & ME had transferred part of this information to him. He further informed the Commission that he could not give this information as records were damaged in the floods. SIC in its order said “ In brief, the Health Department has clearly asserted that the department has not proposed the name of Dr. Ratnakar Sharma for being considered by DPC and cleared by the PSC for promotion. Whereas the PIO PSC insisted that the PSC does not recommend any officer for promotion unless a requisition for the same is received from the administrative department. The Commission has also gonethrough the communication of PIO PSC addressed to the PIO Health Department dated: 26.12.2014 wherein they again reiterate that PSC does not on its own include any officer’s name in the list for promotion. PIO Health Department has insisted that as Dr. Ratnakar Sharma’s name was not at all figuring in the agenda note for DPC meeting, there is no question of sending his vigilance clearance to the DPC/PSC. The commission further said, “The PIO, PSC has nothing in his support to prove that Dr. Sharma’s name from Health & Medical Education Department was received along with vigilance clearance for consideration in DPC / PSC because since devastating floods in Kashmir valley, PSC has been constantly taking the stand that records were damaged. However, the affidavit to substantiate this claim has not been produced. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO J&K Public Service Commission to explain why penalty proceedings under section 17 of the J&K State RTI Act may not be initiated against him for denying the information to the information seeker. His reply, if any, must reach this Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this order”.   Share This News with Your Friends on Social Network     Comment on this Story

top stories of the day

Axe likely to fall on LA Sectt heads for 'backdoor' appointments 'Opportunistic' Omar wants Congress to facilitate his dad's entry into Rajya Sabha Sajad Lone wants RS seat for PC from BJP Appointment of standing counsels: Resentment among pro-BJP, RSS lawyers after Cong supporters advocates accommodated Demanding holiday on Basant Panchami NC, Cong likely to suffer yet another ignominious defeat Population of West Pakistan refugees Filthy toilets at GMC expose cleanliness claims Respecting poll verdicts in Jammu, Valley BJP wants Govt in JK before Delhi polls R-Day threat on ‘soft targets’ As Obama comes to union capital for attending R-Day function, security gets beefed up across Kashmir PDP-BJP alliance before RS elections may shock NC, Congress First ever EDM on KPs tabled in UK Parliament, Members Express concern 9-day discussions on revised estimates 2014-15 from Jan 27 Budgam residents allege unfair distribution of relief cheques for flood affected people Anantnag people hail shifting of M&CC Hospital from unsafe building Bandipora residents protest against usage of sub-standard material in re-construction of bunds Black marketers make fortunes in Baramulla

STOCK UPDATE

BSE Sensex NSE Nifty

CRICKET UPDATE