GOA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Ground
Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.
CORAM:
Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner
Penalty
Case No. 13/2010 in
Appeal
No. 24/SCIC/2010
Penalty
Case No. 14/2010 in
Appeal
No. 25/SCIC/2010
Decided
on 17/09/2014
Mr.
Franky Monteiro,
H.No.
501 Devote,
Loutolim,
Salcete- Goa.
V/s
Shri.
Amol N. Tendulkar,
Village
Panchayat Secretary/
Then
Public Information Officer,
O/o.
Village Panchayat Loutolim,
Loutolim,
Salcete-Goa.
O
R D E R
Penalty
Case 13/2010 in Appeal No. 24/SCIC/2010
RTI
application filed on :19/10/2009
PIO
replied :18/11/2009
Penalty
case started on :15/07/2010
First
Appeal filed on :23/11/2009
First
Appellate Authority Order in : 06/01/2010
Second
Appeal : 28/01/2010
Second
Appeal Decided on :23/06/2010
Penalty
Case 14/2010 in Appeal No. 25/SCIC/2010
RTI
application filed on :19/10/2009
PIO
replied :18/11/2009
Penalty
case started on :15/07/2010
First
Appeal filed on :23/11/2009
First
Appellate Authority Order in : 06/01/2010
Second
Appeal : 28/01/2010
Second
Appeal Decided on :23/06/2010
1) These
are two cases that simultaneously exhibit the height of apathy by
some Government Officer and proper understanding by others towards
RTI Act. The subject matter being similar, they are disposed by a
single order.
2) Both
the original RTI applications were made to the Public Information
Officer/Secretary of Village Panchayat of Loutolim on 19/10/2009
asking for certified copies of information under GOA
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005. The
information was asked on 11 points:-
The
PIO by his letter dated 26/11/2009, refused to give information
stating that the Goa
Right to Information Act 2005
was not in force in State of Goa.
2/-
-2-
3) The
FAA namely BDO of Salcete has allowed the First appeal by his order
dated. 06/01/2010. He has relied on the fact that even though
technically there is no such thing as Goa
Right to Information Act 2005,.
nevertheless the PIO cannot be allowed to fail to know that there is
a Right
to Information Act 2005,
applicable to the whole state of Goa. He has therefore directed the
PIO to furnish required information within 7 days. The PIO did not
appeal against the order but simply ignored it and did not comply.
4) The
second appeal was filed by the original applicant on the ground that
the Respondent did not comply with the order of the FAA. The
Respondent PIO once again, requested that the 2nd
appeal be dismissed in limine for the same reason that there was no
Goa
Right to Information Act 2005
under which the information was sought by the applicant.
Once
again the second appeal was allowed by SCIC order dt. 23/06/2010 and
the PIO namely Village Panchayat Officer of Loutolim was directed to
furnish information within 15 days.
5) The
second Appellate Authority also took cognizance of the fact that the
PIO had committed gross delay. The first reply of the PIO dated
18/11/2009 to the original RTI application dated 19/10/2009 had
furnished no information. Therefore the FAA in his order dated
06/01/2010 had ordered for supplying information within
7 days.
But no information was furnished till the date of filing the second
appeal which was on 28/01/2010, nor during the hearing of the second
appeal. Hence the second Appellate Authority namely the then SCIC
also directed to start Penalty case under Section 20 (1) and 20(2) of
the RTI Act 2005, which is the present penalty case No.13/2010.
6) The
hearing of this began on 15/07/2010, however it was placed on record
by the Advocate for the PIO that they had filed Writ Petition No.547
of 2010 against the order of second Appellate Authority and hence the
penalty proceeding may be adjourned. Subsequently the High Court of
Bombay at Goa by order dated 06/12/2010 dismissed the Writ Petition.
It was observed by the Hon. HC that since there is the Right to
Information Act 2005 very much in force in Goa, the PIO should have
given information.
3/-
--3--
7) Thereafter
the Appellant once again filed his written submission on 20/01/2011.
Nothing was filed by the Respondent PIO on four hearing dates. So the
Appellant once again filed request on 26/04/2011 to pass early order
on 13/06/2011. Thereafter Advocate A.Olivera for Respondent filed an
application claiming that under section 15 of the RTI Act 2005, the
SCIC by himself cannot exercise the powers of the Commission and
hence no hearing be undertaken in the matter.
8) The
Appellant has also filed his reply on the above claim on 14/07/2011
submitting that this new arguments was indulged by the Respondent
only to delay the matter. He once again reiterated his request for
early disposal as well as exemplinary penalty to the Opponent PIO.
However the then SCIC retired on 31/07/2012.
9) Thereafter
the hearing has resumed only on 22/11/2013 after the appointment of
present SCIC.
10) The
then PIO namely Amol. N. Tendulkar, continued to remain absent.
Although he was represented on 22/11/2013 by Adv.A.Fernandes and on
16/01/2014 by Adv. D. Phadke. Adv. D. Phadke maintained that the PIO
or he had nothing more to add except whatever replies were available
on the file. I have perused all the documents including the order of
the High Court of Bombay at Goa passed in Writ Petition No. 547 of
2010 dated 06/12/2010 and the submission of Advocate A. Oliveira
suggesting that the SCIC alone should not undertake any hearing. This
new prayers on behalf of the PIO about non-competence of SCIC under
Sec. 15, is not supported by any citation or any stay order and
therefore I do not consider that it holds any merits.
11) I
have therefore come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for
imposing penalty on the PIO. I also consider it a fit case for not
taking the issue lightly. The PIO’s attitude in rejecting the
information at the first stage could perhaps be looked upon lightly.
However after a clear order of the FAA, which he did not choose to
challenge, and equally categorical order of the SCIC which was
further upheld by the High Court, the attitude and the behaviour of
the concerned PIO becomes a matter of serious concern. Hence it is a
case fit for imposing heavy penalty and for further communication of
adverse remark to the government under section 20(2).
4/-
--4--
-Order-
12
A) I therefore order that a penalty shall be levied on the then PIO
Amol. N. Tendulkar in his personal capacity.
12
B) In the fitness of the case I would give him a last chance to
explain why a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only)
should not be imposed on him separately in each case and why a
recommendation should not be made to the Department to take adverse
entry in his “APAR”
(Annual Performance Appraisal Report) for the above mentioned
behaviour of
- insensitivity towards RTI Act and
- gross disrespect and disobedience to the direction given by the FAA, SCIC, and High Court of Bombay at Goa.
13)
The above order should be communicated to the parties and the PIO
Amol. N. Tendulkar be issued notice for hearing on part B of the
order.
Sd/-
(Leena Mehendale)
Goa State Chief Information Commissioner
Panaji – Goa.
No comments:
Post a Comment