[HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG

When the Courts will reopen after Holidays, I will discuss the matter with an advocate. In the meantime, I give some information to you: Case No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000144 – Last order pertain to 25th July, 2011.   As per section 340 of Cr. P. C, only the court before which false evidence has been given can make a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. This cannot be done by an individual.   CIC is covered under the definition of Court for the purpose of this section.  I have brought to the knowledge of the IC, the PIO action and mailing a copy of the same by separate post to you also.  On my request, IC, Annapurna Dixit has ordered "In so far as the erstwhile CPIO is concerned, he is no longer in service and hence no peal action can now be taken against him…..…. In view of the fact that no further action can be taken nor remedy provided under operation of the RTI Act 2005, the matter is treated as closed".   The order is silent on the partial compliance of previous order of the IC as the memo issued by the FAA on the directive of the CIC failed to give strict warnings to the staff but simply gave directions for record keeping.   Such order encourage the CPIO's to treat the RTI applications in a casual manner as they know that there are very sleek chances of any action against them by the CIC.  My case is a live example of the same where my genuine demand have been turned down silently and without giving speaking order on some of the issues, the IC has treated the matter as closed.  In the face of such erroneous orders, applicants have no option but to sit silently. Hardly any applicant can gather the courage to challenge such orders in the Court though they know that justice has not done to them. But non challenging the order in the High Court does not mean that the applicant is satisfied with the order of the Commission. On Sun, 14/8/11, suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> wrote: From: suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG To: mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in Cc: shaileshgan@gmail.com Date: Sunday, 14 August, 2011, 8:03 PM   Dear Shri Gupta          Apropos your specific poser regarding "perjury", the answer, in my view, lay in your own mail itself. You have stated that your submission was declined by CIC on the ground that Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurispudence. Technically speaking, position stated by CIC is right. As you may be aware, Information Commissions have the status of a Civil Court, and  any matter falling within the domain of CrPC which is viewed as a criminal case, does not fall within competence and jurisdiction of Civil Courts.         In my view, the matter can still be pursued with CIC under the provisions of RTI Act, by describing PIO's action / response  as a case of making incorrect and misleading submission which is liable to attract penalty provisions under Sec 20(1). One can make a prayer before CIC for invoking provisions of Sec 18(2) to Order an inquiry in the matter, and simultaneously also ask for departmental action against PIO U/S 20(2). For that, a forceful convincing submission would need to be made to CIC supported by documentary evidence. This can be tried even at this stage        In my view, pursuing the matter of perjury with CIC may not be appropriate.       I hope, I have clarified the position.           With regards      S K NANGIA       --- On Sat, 13/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 13 August, 2011, 9:32 PM Dear Nangia ji, Thanks for your exemplry views.  If u can give your views on the order relating to the complait of perjury u.s. 340 of cr p c, I shall be grateful to you or any other members competent to guide about the further course of action on that. On Sat, 13/8/11, suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> wrote: From: suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Cc: shaileshgan@gmail.com Date: Saturday, 13 August, 2011, 7:17 PM Dear Shri Gupta        In your mail to Shri Manoj Pai, you have raised 2 issues: (i) Ms Dixit taking a lenient view and exonerating PIO (who had since retired) for his default in responding to RTI application / providing information while in service, and (ii) that no action can be taken against an official / PIO after his retirement.       On first point, two persons performing role function of a judge adjudicating a case matter can always hold different views and can deliver judgements / order based on their respective perceptions. It is a common happening in Judiciary at various levels, including High Courts / Supreme Court. Whiel both Ms Dixit and SG are CICs with equal authority, their commitments to the cause vary. SG by virtue of his long involvement in the cause of strenghtening RTI as a movement and his background as an Activist himself before his being appointed as CCI, has been giving very bold and pathbreaking Orders. In another recent Order, SG has imposed a penalty on a senir CBI Officer who tried to show defiance in the matter of giving appearance before the Commission. I am sure no other CIC would have dared to do it. So, we have to take the Orders of Ms Dixit in its own stride. My experience with Ms Dixit is also none too encouraging, She has been taking soft view in cases where PIO does not respond to RTI application in the first place and later responds after Appeal is filed (which establishes the fact of delay beyond any realms of doubt) and again provides incomplete & misleading information.        On the 2nd point, it may not be correct to state and / or take a view that no action can be taken against an Official after his retirement for his lapse / default while he was in service. If a cause of action has been initiated for a punitive action against such Official for lapse / default before his retirement, he continues to be accountable for the recalcitrance in his performance while in service. Government Rules for proceeding against such officials do provide for such recourse /action against them. In fact, retirement of such official is made conditional subject to his accountability till the matter is finally decided. There are whole lot of cases where officials have faced action for their lapses / defaults while in service. In fact, in some cases even the release of terminal benefits (on retirement) are withheld till the cases are decided.        I trust, that makes the things clear       S K NANGIA             --- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [HumJanenge] Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Cc: "subramanian" <gs.manian@nic.in>, mkgper1952@gmail.com Date: Friday, 12 August, 2011, 9:42 AM --- On Fri, 12/8/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Thanks Mr Pai for mailing this landmark decision.  RTI users are grateful to Shri  Shailesh Gandhi, IC for his landmark decision and hope that other ICs will not be found wanting. In my case, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner has exornated the CPIO on the plea that he has retired though his lapses were proved to the extent of even submitting three false affidavits before the Commission stating that the file has lost.  On the order of the Commission, PIO even wrote to the Delhi Police twice that the file has been lost and DP has to register an NCR (Non-cognisable Report) on the second complaint.  CIC has even refused to take action against the faultering CPIO for perjury u.s. 340 of Cr. P.C. for misleading the CIC. IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit observed on my prayer to take action under sec. 340, "The Appellant filed another application dated 03.05.2011 invoking provisions of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC.  This application is rejected outrightly since the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence."  Thus in such circumstances, no applicant will be able to challange the CPIO's if they file wrong affidavits and lodge false FIRs or NCR claiming loss of file.  The complaint complaint u.s. 340 before the Metropolitan Magistrate can only be filed by the Court/ Authority before which such false affidavit (s) have been submtted.  If the plea of the Hon'ble IC is accepted, more and more ICs will falsly represent before the CIC or SIC's that the file has got lost. On penalising the retired CPIO, the observation is, "In so far as the erstwhile CPIO is concerned, he is no longer in service and hence no penal action can now be taken against him .In view of the fact that no further action can be taken nor remedy provided under operation of the RTI Act 2005, the matter is treated as clsoed." Enlightened members of this Forum are invited to give their views on the issue and suggest further action as per RTI Act and other laws of the land. On Thu, 11/8/11, Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in> wrote: From: Manoj Pai <mpai@bsnl.in> Subject: Retired CPIO penalized by IC SG To: manojpai@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, 11 August, 2011, 10:15 PM It  might interest you, that in recent decision IC SG has imposed full penalty  of Rs.25,000/- on one Mr. M. M. Das Retired CPIO of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kolkata. Maybe  this decision could be of help to you in matters where the CPIO denied  you  information  and was confident that he / she would not be imposed any penalty after retirement. Manoj