[HumJanenge] IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders...

IC Sushma Singh is known for her copy/paste orders (in spite of Mr Sarbajit claiming that she is a seasoned bureaucrat)

seems to be now going overboard in her zeal to dispose matters before her and reduce pendency ! Looks as if disposal is the other word fro remanding back:

(Asking FAA to decide on Penalty)

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_001982_T_82141.pdf

4. Having considered the submissions of the CPIO and the appellant, the

Commission observes that there is a delay of 42 days in providing of requisite

records to the appellant. The documents requested on 9.6.2011 after inspection,

were provided only on 22.7.2011.  The FAA, CESTAT is hereby directed to

consider the submissions of Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and identify the person

responsible for the delay and recover the penalty amount from him. If both are

responsible, the penalty should be recovered on pro-rata basis from both Shri

Mohinder Singh, CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO. 

5. Penalty of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) for the

delay of 42 days @ Rs. 250/- per day is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005,

which shall be recovered in 5 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,100/- (Rupees two

thousand one hundred only) either from both Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and

Shri Pramod Kumar, deemed CPIO on pro-rata basis or from any one of them,

identified responsible for the delay, by the FAA, from their pay and allowances

from the month starting June, 2012 to October, 2012.

===================

(Remanding back even when FAA has passed an order)

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2012_000243_M_82659.pdf 

4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, it is the contention of
the appellant that even after passing of the order by the FAA dated 5.7.2011,
directing the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in respect
of Point 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), complete and correct information
has not been provided to him by the CPIO in his letter dated 12.8.2011. The
CPIO on the other hand submits that he had complied with the directions of the
FAA.
5. In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the appellant with the replies
provided to him by the CPIO, the matter is remitted back to the FAA with the
direction to provide information by passing a speaking order in respect of Point
3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), by treating the second appeal filed before
the Commission as first appeal, within three weeks of receipt of this order. 

Can someone clarify whether she is "Information Commissioner" or "Remanding Commissioner" ?

RTIwanted