news details |
|
|
| Why disciplinary action may not be initiated against you? | | SIC asks additional DC Bandipora | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, June 20: As the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Bandipora, who is also designated First Appellate Authority (FAA) under State RTI Act failed to adjudicate an RTI appeal, the State Information Commission (SIC) has sent him a show cause notice, seeking his explanation as to why necessary action may not be initiated against him under the provisions of Civil Services Conduct rules.
As per details available with Early Times, one Farooq Ahmad Dar of Rakh Shilvat, Sumbal, in Bandipora district made a request under J&K RTI Act, 2009 before Tehsildar Sonawari seeking two types of information.
First part pertains to details of all Khasra Numbers of village which has come under Section 4 & 8, Serial Numbers which fall under Agrarian Reforms Act, Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and Evacuee Property Act. Applicant also sought Jamabandi entries, Girdawari for the year 2004. The second part of the information sought under RTI Act pertained to list of persons who have been paid relief for fully damaged/partial damaged houses along-with list of beneficiaries under SDRF.
After not receiving the information from Tehsildar / PIO , applicant filed First Appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Bandipora on 24.01.2015 on the grounds that no response has been received from PIO within 30 days of submission of RTI application.
Subsequently 2nd appeal was filed before State Information Commission (SIC) on 08.04.2015.
The appellant has requested the State Information Commission (SIC) to intervene and that necessary information may kindly be provided to him and strong action be taken against the officers involved.
In reply to the notice of the Commission, Tehsildar Sumbal vide letter dated 29.05.2015 submitted as under: -
"That I have recently been posted as Tehsildar Sonwari and at the time of the application was made by the appellant my predecessor was holding the chair. After perusal of office file in the instant case, I would like to submit that information sought by the appellant was pertaining to two different issues one is with regard to the list of relief paid to the flood sufferers, breakup wise full damage/severe damage/partial damage of Halwa Rakh Shilvath, which information has been already provided to the appellant by his predecessor. The second information sought was with regard to all the serial numbers which fall under Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Evacuee Property Act. The said information has not been provided to the appellant by the then Tehsildar Sonawari (PIO) reasons best known to him. Moreover, after perusal of the file the information sought by the appellant has been got partially prepared by the undersigned and the same will be forwarded to the appellant as and when the requisite fee will be deposited in this office for which the appellant has been intimated. It s worthwhile to mentioned here that the rest of the information that the applicant has asked for will take at least three months to compile as the job is very huge and tough as reported by field agency".
During the proceeding in the State Information Commission (SIC) on 5.6.2015 , Tehsildar Sonawari, Maeen Azhar Kakroo produced copy of letter dated 24.01.2015 addressed to appellant informing him that information regarding details of persons under Section 4 & 8 Agrarian Reforms Act is voluminous and directed appellant to attend his office and specify the information which is mostly essential/needed. Appellant Farooq Ahmad Dar during the hearing admitted to have received second part of the information i.e. list of relief paid to the flood sufferers.
With regard to first part of the information is concerned, the State Information Commission (SIC) observed that information sought is vague for an entire village. The SIC upheld the argument put forth by Tehsildar in his letter dated 24.01.2015 and counter statement with regard to first part of the information.
The appellant Farooq Ahmad Dar submitted that he has not received copy of letter dated 24.01.2015. Accordingly SIC directed , Tehsildar to provide a copy of this letter to appellant, which is self explanatory. SIC directed appellant to approach Tehsildar Sonawari and seek specific information as per provisions of the Act. SIC order reads as :
"The Commission has taken a serious note of the fact that First Appellate Authority (FAA) cum Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) has not filed reply/counter statement in compliance to the notice of the Commission dated 20.05.2015. Therefore, it is not known whether he has decided the First Appeal filed before him or not. The Commission therefore shall be constrained to accept the statement of the appellant that First Appeal has not been decided. Accordingly, FAA/ADC is directed to explain within two weeks from issue of this order, as to why disciplinary action as per provisions of the Act/Civil Services Conduct Rules shall not be taken for non-compliance of the directions of the Commission". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
