Rajesh Gupta
Jammu, Apr 19:
In reply to one RTI, one officer, who is topper in JKAS Batch but seems be not aware about laws & acts, which stands proved in a RTI reply wherein she had failed to provide information to an applicant on notings of her file & strange to mention here that the said topper of JKAS quoted Section 8(1)(b) of RTI Act while denying the information.
First Appeal was filed & in hearing one Legal Assistant of JDA was also present along with PIO etc etc & declared that Sec 8(1)(b) cannot be applied to personal information & ordered to provide the information but not provided, speaks of case of harassment by JDA to public.
Whereas, STP of JDA denied information to applicant on his personal case by quoting Section 8(1)(j).
It is also a question on FAA for not acting on PIO for providing false information wrt to quoted sections, otherwise, which should have been read befor replying, otherwise speaks of their proved incompetence & malafidies, needs actions.
Now, shockingly, a RTI applicant had sought some information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in sister concern of JDA as, Jammu Municipal Corporation, which included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable.
In a, case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses, whereas Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.
|