Mr Goyal, I will appreciate, if you would not cross post the contents in other lists. Causes confusion, as well as breaks the rules made by the list owners / moderators. 2. In your own admission, you have stated that 95% of the the CIC is not prepared to impose penalty, so why not highlight the remaining 5%. For the past 64 years since independence, employees of the Public Authority have never been on the receiving side. They were never held responsible for any administrative lapse. A penalty of an office in every PA would go a long way in driving some sense of responsibility and accountability. Hence the need to highlight and give wide publicity for such orders. 3. If you go through my original post in this thread, you will note, that I had raised the issue of the defination of PA in the case of IDRBT. This is very important. 4. Since 2007, stopped filing application U/s 6. Focus was on 4(1)(b) and since past one year, the focus is on 4(1)(a) & 4(1)(c)/(d). Manoj --- On Wed, 8/17/11, Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Manoj, |
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
RE: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.