news details |
|
|
| SIC puts 2 officials of Kupwara hydraulic office on penalty notice | | |
Early Times Report
Srinagar Aug 6
The State Information Commission (SIC) has issued penalty show cause notice under State RTI Act against two officials of Superintending Engineering (SE) Hydraulic office Kupwara as the officials were found to be deliberately denying information to an information seeker from Karnah Kupwara.
Details available with Early Times reveal that an appellant namely Mohammad Shafi Chachi R/O Handwal Karnah Kupwara filed Second Appeal on 29.02.2016 before the State Information Commission (SIC) wherein he stated that, he filed an application before PIO office of the SE Hydraulic Circle District Kupwara H.Q. Handwara vide application dated 21.12.2015, but he got no response from the said department. Thereafter, he submitted First Appeal to SE on 19.01.2016, but till date requisite information has not been provided. He has accordingly requested the Commission to direct the concerned authorities to provide the requisite information and also action under rules may be initiated for not providing information in time.
SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara filed reply/counter statement before SIC , dated 07.05.20.15 wherein he submitted that RTI application received in his office on 28.12.2015, was transferred to PIO/ Technical Officer (T. O) . with SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara on 29.12.2015, who further marked it to Dealing Assistant Mr. Altaf Hussain on 29.12.2015. That First Appeal to FAA/SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara on 27.01.2016 was marked to PIO/TO to SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara for providing information to the applicant. The applicant according PIO/ TO was asked to attend circle office on 15.02.2016 to deposit Xerox charges vide letter dated 05.02.2016, but the applicant did not turn up.
As per RTI application the information has been sought regarding seniority list, DPC’s order copies, roaster register of reservation maintenance from 1995 onwards and photo copy of service book of one Mr. Mohammad Altaf (Establishment Clerk) in the circle office. In the reply/counter statement of SE, it is nowhere mentioned that appellant was asked to deposit photocopy charges prior to 5.2.2016. The respondents produced copy of letter 05.02.2016, under which the appellant has been asked to receive the information and remit Xerox charges. As per Section-7(3)(a) of the RTI Act, the PIO is required to send intimation for depositing of fee within a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of RTI application. As per reply/counter statement of SE/First Appellate Authority (FAA) the RTI application has been marked to PIO/TO with the SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara on 29.12.2015 and therefore this intimation should have been sent to the applicant by or before 29.01.2016. However, it is nowhere mentioned that an intimation has been sent to him to deposit the fee. Therefore, as per provisions of the Act, the appellant is entitled to information free of cost. Also, PIO/TO to SE is liable for initiation of action under Section-17 of the Act.
SIC order reads as :
“In view of the above, the Commission directs PIO O/O SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara to provide the information in respect of Point-1 as per record to the appellant within one week. Further, in respect of Point-3, PIO is directed to provide copies of all orders of appointment and promotion of Mr. Mohammad Altaf (Establishment clerk) in the circle office. As regards delay, PIO submitted during proceedings that he sought assistance of concerned Dealing Assistant under Section 5(4) of the Act, who caused the delay in providing the information. “
SIC order further reads as :
“Therefore, prima facie Dealing Assistant concerned, Shri Altaf Hussain is deemed as PIO under Section 5(5) of the Act. Therefore, Mr. Mohamamd Amin Shah PIO/Technical Officer (TO) to SE Hydraulic Circle Handwara and Mr. Altaf Hussain Dealing Assistant office of the SE Hydraulic Circle Kupwara H.Q Handwara is directed to explain as to why penalty proceedings shall not be initiated against them under Section 17 of J&K RTI Act for failure to provide required information to the appellant within prescribed period under the Act. Their explanation, if any, should reach the Commission within two weeks along with compliance report. The appeal filed before the Commission is disposed of with the above directions”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
