Penalty 15/2012 on: 28/05/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

“Shrama Shakti Bhavan”, Ground Floor, Patto Plaza, Panaji – Goa.

CORAM: Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Penalty No. 15/2012

In Appeal 269/SCIC/2011

Decided on: 28/05/2014

Shri. K. P. Harmalkar,

R/o Susheela Sankul,

BL-A, G-3. Orulem,

Vasco-Da-Gama-Goa. ….. Appellant.

V/s

Public Information Officer,

Chief Officer,

Mormugao Municipal Council,

Vasco-da-Gama-Goa. ….. Respondent.

O R D E R ( OPEN COURT )

RTI Application dated: - 16/08/2011

PIO Reply on: - 14/09/2011

First Appeal Filed on: - 22/09/2011

FAA Order dated: - 25/10/2011

Second Appeal filed on: - 07/12/2011

Second Appeal Order dated:- 10/04/2012

Notice for Penalty dated:- 03/05/2012

(1) This Penalty case arises out of decision in appeal No. 269/SCIC/2011 dated 10/04/2012, wherein it was directed that respondent PIO namely Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council, should comply with the order of FAA within 20 days. It was further ordered that notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 be issued to the then PIO to Show Cause why penal action should not be taken for delay in furnishing information.

(2) Accordingly notice for this penalty case was issued on 03/5/2012. Case came up for final hearing today, when the complainant was present. Adv. Khilji was represented the current PIO Shri. Yeshwant Tavde, who has joined the post of C.O. of MMC on 29/5/2013.

(3) The original RTI matter related to the non-payment of arrears of VI Pay Commission to the appellant for the period on 01/01/2006 to 30/04/2006 (4 months).

Cont……….2

::2::

(4) One UDC, Mr. Parsekar from the MMC is also present to assist the Adv. for PIO. All the three agree that now the appellant has received necessary certified copies of the document of his revised pension.

(5) In view of this the complainant submits that at least a token fine if not maximum fine be imposed on PIO.

It is to be emphasized that if an RTI question remains unanswered then the responsibility for answering it is with each and every PIO in whose tenure the information has remained to be supplied. Thus a question which has been left unanswered by an outgoing PIO becomes a responsibility of the new PIO who takes the charge. I have noticed that generally a register of RTI applications is maintained in the office of PIO. However I have also noticed that very seldom the PIO actually monitor the pendency.

In the instant case too the present PIO had been made aware through the notice in the Penalty case that the original RTI question has remained unanswered. He has been holding his present office since June 2013 or so. The RTI question pertains to arrears of pension which could not be paid till the present PIO was given a notice by this office. It is for this reason that I agree with the submission of the complainant that the present PIO who has come to his past since June 2013, shall pay a compensation of Rs. 1500/- to the complainant within 15 days from today.

(6) If the appellant so desires he can also file separate application under Sec 20(1) against the PIO’s working on 14/09/2011 and on 10/04/2012, by name, within 2 months of this order.

Accordingly the case is closed.

Order declared in open Court. Inform the parties.

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji-Goa