Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DISCLOSING LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY CIC

This is not a solitary case against the CPIO, NSD, AIR.  The other cases have also been heard by Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble IC.  I will have to go to background in short.  I have taken voluntary retirement from a Central Govt. Enterprise, as it was going to be close at that time and after retirement; I was working with NSD, AIR as casual since 2002. After passing written test twice for casual editor in the NSD, AIR, was rejected in the interview both the times.  When I asked RTI to inspect the file of this case and other thing, thought the AIR had to comply the CIC's decision but removed me from casual employment.  Its first reply was that I do not deserve for the post on which I was working for the last six years.  Obviously, I was victimized for filling RTI applications.  When I started for supplementary information such as the basis of conclusion drawn that I do not deserve, CPIO replied that you do not need this information and against this when an appeal was filed before the CIC, it ordered to give information and issued show cause notice to the PIO for denying the information.  Finally, Mrs. Dixit has condoned the penalty proceedings in that case stating that there was no denial of information but this was the case of delay in furnishing information.  The conclusion of the IC was erroneous on the face of the reply of the CPIO that I do not need information though the same was not exempt and was concerned with my job. In her decision in the decision in current case, she has also mentioned in her decision that in the past, she has not taken action against the CPIO but this cannot be repeated.  The furnishing of wrong and false affidavits was in the knowledge of Commission as I mentioned the same in my written submissions duly referred in the decision.    The some other cases heard against the same PIO by Mrs. Dixit, Information Commissioner included return of my RTI application for not filling the pay to column on the IPO.  The CPIO has never mentioned the details of first appellate authority in his replies to me and understandably to others also. His wrong phone number was mentioned on the AIR website for about six years and no details of FAA which is mandatory under RTI Act.  After the retirement, the phone number was corrected and the details of FAA were mentioned when I took up the matter by filling RTI application on the initiative of the new CPIO appointed in his place.  Suo motu disclosures were put up on the newsonair.com website on the order of the CIC on my application.  If you see the website, u will find that on the suo motu disclosure, it has also been mentioned that this is being done on the orders of the CIC issued in the case filed by me.  The retired CPIO has also given the wrong information that the file about the serious charges against me that my bonafides are doubtful and such a person cannot be put in government service is missing.  When the FIR was filed about the missing file, the old and public authority did not reply to the Investigation Officer. Now, inquiry on the missing file will be concluded by 20th and it is likely to report that such a file has never existed.  Story is very long and I do not want to take the precious time of the members.  This is the story of the victimization of RTI activist and now AIR has given clue that if I want, I can rejoin to which my reply is that withdraw the charge first.  In fact, I am in search of an advocate of an advocate who can take up these issues before the High Court, on an affordable expenses.  I request you to read the full decision available on the CIC website on 8th Feb. 2011. --- On Sat, 16/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DISCLOSING LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 16 April, 2011, 8:37 AM To IC(AD) defense, I found her order under reference fair enough. Unlike MC Guptaji's claim, she came down heavily on the respondents. Maybe she did not penalize the erring CPIO, who had by then retired. Had Guptaji done his home work properly and able to establish that the CPIO was habitual in dely / denial of information to other applicants as well, perhaps the story would have been different. A single case of delay is usually treated as a solitary case. Next time when one goes for the hearing, it could help if the applicant could examine before hand, all RTI Applications that have been disposed of by the CPIO in question. Manoj Pai --- On Fri, 4/15/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: > That's quite OK, we dont want to be > referred to / described as "angrez > ke poonch". > > For Guptaji's benefit I will explain the idiom as  > "What is the use of > locking the safe door ('tijori') after all the money has > been > stolen ?". I was using it to describe IC(AD)'s order to the > PA after > the CPIO has left, and NOT to Guptajis subsequent actions. > > Sarbajit