First Appeal dt.9.8.10 to Directorate of IT-Mah. Secretariat

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF RTI ACT 2005

                                                                               Date: 09.08.2010

From:

Nilesh Wankhede

Distt. President,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Democratic Rights Forum,

Ambedkar Sewa Sadan, Tilak Ward,

Post: WARORA, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Cont.: 9322246333 email: drf.india@gmail.com

To,

Shri S. H. Jadhav

First Appellate Authority

Directorate of Information Technology,

General Administrative Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.            

1.            I have submitted an Application dated 12.04.2010 under RTI Act 2005.  A copy of the same is placed herewith as ANNEXURE-I at page-1.   

2.            In response I have received a letter on 12.06.2010 from Dr. Santosh Bhogle, Under Secretary & Public Information Officer sent vide letter No. MaTaSa/Sandarbha-10/1887/Ka-39 dated 06/04/2010?.  A copy of the same is placed herewith as ANNEXURE-II at pages-2 to 3.  Please note the date of letter sent by him is dated as 06.04.2010 in response to my application dated 12.04.2010.  The mistake committed by him shows his careless attitude toward public service and lack of knowledge in drafting.

3.           The PIO of your office has advised vide his above referred letter that I should pay Rs.50/- within 5 days to get the computerized copy of data records of attendance of public servants of your office.  Here once again the PIO has shown his attitude like dictator on the people of India while dictating baseless time limit of 5 days to deposit the money and to get the data.  His attitude is showing that he has forgot that he is a public servant and getting salary for public service and his misconduct of ignorance duty clearly proved that he is unfit to be remained in public service.

4.         However, I have sent Rs.75/- by money order including Rs.50/- for charges of CD and Rs.25/- to send the CD to me by Speed Post.  I have sent the money order and its advice on 22.06.2010 by Mantralaya Post Office through my representative Mr. Ram Samudre who resides at Mumbai.   A copy of my said letter dated 22.06.2010 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-III at page-4 and copies of Money Order Receipt dt.22.06.2010 and Speed Post receipt dt.22.06.2010 are enclosed as ANNEXUREs-IV at page-5.    

5.       In the said letter dt.22.6.2010 I have also nominated/authorized Mr. Ram Samudre to collect the CD on my behalf personally whereas he met to Dr. Santosh Bhogle, PIO on 06.07.2010 but the PIO told him that it is not his job and advised to my representative to get the information copied from the computer.  While going through the process it is seen that all the data is hidden from access to the people of India by personalized password.  Though it is the duty of the public servant who have been assigned the work as a Public Information officer.  It was the third attempt of Dr. Santosh Bhogle, PIO wherein he has shown his attitude of ignorance of public service.

6.      Once again his attitude of intentional mishandling into the matter has come out by his letter No.MaTaSa/Sandarbha-10/1887/Ka-39 dated 06.04.2010??? which is received here on 12.07.2010 wherein he is stating lies that my representative did not met him and he has accepted that Rs.75/- sent by me on 22.06.2010 have been received by him.  If the amount of charges for CD and postal charges are received by him so why he has not sent the CD to me by post?  A copy of envelope under which the letter was sent by PIO is enclosed as ANNEXURE-V at page-6 from which it can be seen that the letter is received on 12.07.2010.

7. CONDUCT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

               While observing the facts come out from the above details, it is proved that whatever action done by Dr. Santosh Bhogle, PIO/Under Secretary is done with intention and it shows his intentional ignorance of duties assigned to him for public service. 

               It can be presumed that he is disobeying the provision of RTI Act since he did not quote any section of the RTI Act 2005 and only tried to deny the access of the information under one pretext or the other and restricted the democratic rights of a citizen. 

               He has forgotten that he is a servant of citizens and acted like a dictator which is a RASHTRADROH in our democratic nation.  He is holding a sensitive post of Under Secretary in public service and posted in Secretariat of the state and so it cannot be considered that he is not literate to the level to understand constitutional provisions.  Therefore, his misconduct is unforgivable. 

               While observing his attitude toward public service it can be presumed the how he will be doing injustice to the assignments given to him for public service.  Such public servants are the root cause of injustice to public as they misuse the powers of the post for doing corruption as well as to get shelter and gives burden to the nation and so they should be immediately not only thrown out of public service but necessary legal action should also be initiated against for their imprisonment for RASHTRADROH for misusing the powers of the post for disobeying their constitution duty which is against the nation and all the public money paid to them while in public service should also be recovered with fine and they should be declared “DISQUALIFIED” for public service. 

8. ORDER SOUGHT BY THIS APPEAL

(i) It is provided under sub-section (6) of section 7 of RTI Act 2005 that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5) of RTI Act 2005, the person making request for the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limit specified in sub-section (1).  Consequently it is pertinent to refer;

(a)   the sub-section (5) which says that whereas access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the Provisions in sub-section (6), pay fees as may be prescribed

(b)   sub-section (1) says that subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Office, as the case may be on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in section 8 and 9.

Therefore, the requisite information sought by me vide my application dated 16.02.2010 should be given to me as early as possible at free of cost as per provision of sub-section (6) of section 7 of RTI Act 2005.

(ii)  maximum possible penalty should be imposed in accordance with section 20 of RTI Act 2005 against Dr. Santosh Bhogle, PIO & Under Secretary, Ditectorate of Information Technology, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai following with disciplinary action to remove him out of public service immediately since he is very harmful while in public service for a democratic nation keeping in view the facts brought out above. 

Subsequently, further legal action should also be initiated against him framing the charges of RASHTRADROH and all public money paid to him while in public service should be recovered from him with fine and he should be declared “DISQUALIFIED” for public service. 

It should also be taken into consideration that why his educational and other qualification should not be re-examined since his integrity is fallen under doubt?  His all the qualification certificates produced by him while getting appointment in public service should also be seized till the outcome of his trial.

DA: Annexures I to V (Pages-6)

Date: 09.06.2010                                    Signature of Appellant

Place: Mumbai.

Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to;

Mr. A.B.P. Pandey

Principal Secretary,

Information Technology Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

Mr.K.P. Bakshi

Principal Secretary,

General Administration Department (Service) (Ra.Va.Ka.)

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.