Dear All This mail regarding conduct of IC SG at a hearing taken by him, which has been circulating for last few days, aroused a curiousity in me to find out details of the case. Based on a reading of the complaint as put on rti board / enquiries made /information gathered in this case matter, I share with all the picture / position emerging as under: As would be observed from the text of Shri Misra's mail, he had filed an application with PIO, City Zone AC of MCD, which related to information gathering from various departments within MCD; the subject matter of application in question was corruption in these sundry departments in question, for which Shri Misra desired action to be taken against concerned officials which in his perception / assessment were guilty of corruption. The grievance of Shri Misra was that PIO did not forward / transsfer his application to all those sundry departments within MCD, which matter he eventually took to Central Information Commission. Here, a note needs to be taken about sequence of events unolding. RTI Application was filed on 27.09.11 and the case matter, after crossing stages of PIO / FAA (about which, however, there is no mention in the mail) approaching CIC with 2nd appeal or a complaint, was heard by IC SG on 07.03.12, which is within 5 months of RTI application being lodged in end-September'11 in the first place. This should set at rest perceptions of unduly long delays by IC SG in attending to cases coming before him. Another interesting aspect which should be of interest to note, is the date of 25.08.11 when, according to Shri Misra, PIO statedly had written to Police requesting for a case to be registered in this case matter. It is Shri's Misra's grouse that the reference to Police was not made in a forceful manner for lodging of FIR and that the matter was being dealt with in a casual manner, and that he (Shri Misra) wanted stern action in the case matter. The fact that a letter regarding case matter had been written by MCD Officials to Police 25.08.11 and RTI Application was filed by Shri Misra one month later on 27.09.11, would throw an obvious inference that the so-stated fraud had come out in the open in public domain before the filing of application by Shri Misra after over one month of MCD Officials writing to Police on 25.08.11. In the given situation, obviously the concern of Shri Misra appeared to be for action to be initiated against guilty corrupt officials, and this lies within the domain / jurisdiction of Police with whom a complaint had been lodged. Apparently, there is not much merit in Shri Misra feeling agitated about PIO and forcing the issue to CIC, except that PIO did not forward / transfer his application to various other departments. It appears that the quest of Shri Misra was more about action to be taken against corrupt officials and much less about seeking information in the case matter. In my view, when Shri Misra was aware of MCD having written to Police on 25.08.11 for registering a case, in all fairness he should have simultaneously sought information from Police enquiring about progess in the case matter after MCD lodging a complaint. As regards the aspect of transfering / forwarding of application of Shri Misra to various other departments, about which he felt aggrieved and which in fact was the ground of his approaching CIC. It may be of interest FOR ALL to note that as per an advisory issued by DOPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pesions, Government of India, in cases where information requested for is held by more than one department / public authority, it should be returned to the applicant telling him to approach the concerned department / public authority with a fresh request for information. The thumb rule thus set for handling of such cases is that if the informantion relates to one public authority, forward / transfer the application to them; if it is held by more than one public authority then in that case return the application to the applicant. This is precisely what happened in this case with PIO not forwarding Shri Misra's application to other departments, about which Shri Misra is nursing his grievance. Right or wrong, the merit of which can be debated, this is the ruling set by DOPT advisory which most PIOs follow in cases where information requested pertains to more than one department / public authority. Frankly speaking, it may not be proper to find fault with PIO's conduct in this case matter for his not forwarding the application to other departments which is the basic ground of grievance in this case matter, nor can we seeking imposing a penalty on PIO which Shri Misra was insistent about. Now about the happenings at the time of hearing by IC SG, which Shri Misra has ventilated with anger and sense of hurt feelings. It is learnt that during the course of hearing at CIC, Shri Misra was very vocal & voiceforus, making all sorts of allegations about PIO and all others at MCD being highly corrupt, saying in Anna Hazare style (like what Anna stated at Ramlila Grounds last year in full public glare and carried live by all Channels) that all public servants / bureaucrats are our "NAUKARS" which was tantamount to demeaning PIO at the hearing iviting resentment by PIO, demanding for Orders to be passed by IC SG for FIR to be lodged against PIO (THIS IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT BY THE MAIL CIRCULATED BY SHRI MISRA), which apparently is beyond the scope of jurisdication of any IC. Shri Misra statedly was not recetive to the suggestion of identifying specific information from some particular department, for which SG would pass order; Shri Misra was insistent on penalty being imposed on PIO which did not appear proper & justifiable in this case, and an Order to be passed for lodging of FIR against PIO / other MCD Officials - which as stated earlier was beyond the scope of IC's competence & jurisdiction. It was when Shri Misra caused his tempers to run high and his refusal to heed pleadings by PIO as also IC SG as the Presiding Official at the hearing, that SG was constrained to remark / telling Shri Misra to observe decorum / keep silent, which Shri Misra has ventilated as a shut up remark. While, it is true that most PIOs have not been compliant with RTI in spirit & intent, adopting evasive appoach in providing proper point specific complete information, RTI applicants who desire spirit of law to prevail in adjudication of appeals / complaints under RTI, also need to observe proper decorum while presenting our case and not display conduct which cannot pass the muster of civility and decency. We also need to bear in mind that RTI cannot be used as a tool for seeking grievance redressal / complaint redressal mechanism. All of us are aware that there have been cases of RTI being mis-used for causes which do not fall within the domain of RTI. A recent case that must have been seen & read by all, is that of a Court imposing a fine of Rs.50,000 on one RTI applicant who sought to use this tool for settling personal scores in a family dispute with his own brother by insisting on fretting out information on a matter which was found to be falling outside the domain of RTI. I am sharing this with all in the interest of fairplay in RTI matters. If Shri Misra has different version, he is welcome to share it in detail with correct perspective. I see this has also been demanded by one of the mails put on rti board by Raja Bunch. S K NANGIA - On Sat, 10/3/12, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
Sunday, March 11, 2012
[HumJanenge] Allegataions against shailesh gandhi insulting a senir citizen appellant: Some details
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.