Fw: [rti4empowerment] ADVICE - CONTINUE

Add.-   IC also said that responsibility for all this should be fixed and some body should be held responsible for denial of information and for not proper compliance of CIC's order.    On the act of commission and omission during service, I am mentioning a decision of Supreme Courts published in ToI dated 16.1.2011. IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON ACT OF COMMISSION AND OMMISSION DURING SERVICE (From ToI, 16.1.2011, Times Nation, page 15). Magistrate gets the sack for ticketless travel in Mum local Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN New Delhi: A magistrate rightly lost her job for ticketless travel in Mumbai locals, said the Supreme Court which denied her pension. The court said her compulsory retirement was justified and also rejected the pension plea because she demanded free first class travel and behaved offensively when ticket checkers caught her travelling without ticket three times between Mulund and Dadar.      "In a country governed by rule of law, nobody is above law, including judicial officers," said a Bench of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and A R Dave. The magistrate had officiated for eight years and would have been entitled to pension after two years.      The railway authorities reported the magistrate to the Bombay HC which inquired, found her guilty of ticketless travel and compulsorily retired her on September 27, 2009.      The Supreme Court agreed with the HC and said: "She not only travelled without ticket in a railway compartment thrice but also complained against ticket collectors who accosted her, misbehaved with the railway officials and in those circumstances we do not see how the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to her could be said to be disproportionate to the offence alleged against her."      The magistrate's letter to the railway authorities, much after she was fined for ticketless travel, sealed her fate. Writing to Central Railway general manager, she asked: "Are we not entitled, at least to stand in the first class compartments of local trains for the purpose of reaching our courts in time during emergencies?"     "Please do the needful in this matter urgently by giving necessary instructions to the ticket collectors so that we are not humiliated by your ticket collectors on this count and made to pay fine," she said.      The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal challenging compulsory retirement and rejected her pension plea. Justice Sharma, writing the judgment for the Bench, said the letter proved she travelled without ticket. --- On Mon, 17/1/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [rti4empowerment] ADVICE - CONTINUE To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 17 January, 2011, 8:39 PM Today in the hearing, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Central Information Commissioner was very upset on the approach of the CPIO, NSD, All India Radio.  The IC said that since the CPIO has retired without fulfilling his obligations under the Act while there was enough time at his disposal before retirement.  she was convinced that the CPIO has worked with malafide intention and she will take legal opinion on the next course of action. After getting legal opinion, she will pass appropriate order.    I, complainant, submitted before her that retirement is not an impediment as after retirement from the service of Kerala Govt., Mr. P.J. Thomas, present head of Central Vigilance Commission will be tries.  I also cite the case of Mr. SPS Rathore in the Ruchika Girhotra case wherein he (Rathore) was  sentenced.  She, however, reiterated that those were cases of different nature but however, she reiterated of taking legal opinion in the matter before passing the order on my complaint about the claimed loss of documents/ file. Though the police report has been lodged but here also, the CPIO had played smart by informing the falsely informing the police that the documents supporting the note of an officer were lost when even before the note not written.  In the note, an officer of the NSD, AIR made serious allegation that my bonafides are doubtful and such person cannot be put on duty and submitted this before the CIC in anther case to justify my removal.  My fault, filing some RTI applications on the questionable practice prevailed in the AIR.  I submitted that either the charge be proved and I shall be punished or should be withdrawn and on this, IC advised me to go to Court as CIC is not competent in this.   My experience urges me to inform that the Govt. servants should be ready to be victimized besides facing serious and will allegations against themselves for resorting to RTI route. Now, public authority is sending fillers to me that I should rejoin duty but I said that I will do so only after the withdrawal of charge formally.