APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF RTI ACT 2005
Date: 12.04.2010
From:
Ram Samudre
Founder-President,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Democratic Rights Forum,
MITRA 111/9-10, Wenden Avenue,
Matunga (W), Mumbai-400019. Cont.: 9322246333
To,
Appellate Authority
Directorate of Information Technology,
General Administrative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
|
Particulars of the Public Information Officer
|
:
|
Dr. Santosh Bhogle, Under secretary/DIT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of receipt of the order appealed against
|
:
|
22.03.2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last date of filing the appeal
|
:
|
21.04.2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
The grounds for appeal
|
:
|
Grounds are already given in RTI Act 2005 clearly in so simple words in detail. However, facts of the matter are appended below;
|
1. I have submitted an Application dated 16.02.2010 under RTI Act 2005. A copy of the same is placed herewith as ANNEXURE-I at page-1.
The information sought by me vide my said application is reiterated below;
(1) Please give me an attested copy of list of Electronic Identity Card numbers along with the names of cardholders which are issued to public servants, who are working in Mantralaya offices, for the purpose to record their attendance in Attendance Management System.
(2) Please give me IN-TIME and OUT-TIME data records of every Electronic Identity Card holder for the entire period since when the Attendance Management System is provided, up to date. Please give the information in the form of Diskette.
2. In response I have received a letter on 22.03.2010 from Dr. Santosh Bhogle, Under Secretary & Public Information Officer sent vide letter No. __________________________________ dated 26/02/2010. A copy of the same is placed herewith as ANNEXURE-II at page-2.
It can be seen that Dr. Bhogle, PIO has denied to provide the requisite information under pretext of an unjustified reason without mentioning any section of RTI Act 2005 under which this information is restricted to provide to citizens and he has only stated that; (In Marathi)
“______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________ _____________
___________________________________________ _____________ ___________________________________________ _____________ ___________________________________________ _____________ ___________________________________________ _____________ _______________ ____________________________.
3. As per RTI Act 2005, the following 3 check points are observed;
CHECK POINT NO. 1
(1) It is clearly mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 6 that; where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,-
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such a transfer.
OBSERVATIONS ON CHECK POINT NO.1
(i) It can be seen that no such justified action is done by Dr. Bhogle, PIO. He simply replied that (In Marathi); “____________________________________________ ______________________________ _______________ _________________________________________” and ignored his duties. It is his duty to transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such a transfer. However, he could not transfer my application to any other department since it the requisite information is only available with his department and he is only trying to mislead & misguide into the matter. If his say is right so it is a question that why he did not transfer my application to concerned department ?
(ii) A copy of SHASHAN NIRNAY No. IND-1001/Pr.Kr.7/2001/17 (Ra.Va.Ka.) dated 9 April 2002. A copy of the same is enclosed ANNEXURE-III at pages- 3 to 5 for ready reference.
It can be seen that it is the only assignment given to the office of Directorate of Information Technology and Dr. Santosh Bhogle, PIO & Under Secretary is only trying to divert their responsibility to other departments.
It is to note that I have sought information in 02 items which pertains only to Directorate of Information Technology whereas Dr. Bhogle, PIO has tried to mix up both the information.
In item no. (1) I have sought the list of Electronic Identity Card numbers along with the names of cardholders which are issued to public servants by the office of Directorate of Information Technology since the Electronic Identity Cards are handled by them.
Secondly, I have sought in item no. (2) the IN-TIME and OUT-TIME data records of every Electronic Identity Card holder for the entire period since when the Attendance Management System is provided, up to date. I have clearly mentioned the required period.
I am in need of complete & consolidate data record of attendance of every & all the public servants who are working in Mantralaya secretariat to whom the electronic identity card is issued by Directorate of Information Technology and it is the only job given to the office of Directorate of Information Technology to keep the present records of all the public servants of Mantralaya secretariat.
If this information is not available with the office of Directorate of Information Technology so what is the need to establish this office and why the burden is being given to the economy of the state for giving salary of public servants who are posted in this office? Why they should not be removed out from public service so burden on economy of state will also be reduced?
As per RTI Act 2005 it is the responsibility of concerned public authority with whom the information is available to provide the same to the applicant citizen who apply under this act.
CHECK POINT NO. 2
It is clearly mentioned in section 7 of RTI Act 2005 that the Public Information officer on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, 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.
OBSERVATIONS ON CHECK POINT NO.2
(i) Dr. Santosh Bhogle, Under Secretary & PIO did neither provide the requisite information nor mentioned that under which sub-section of section 8 or 9 the requisite information is restricted to provide to citizens.
(ii) On review of the reply which Dr. Bhogle, PIO gave it can be seen that he has written in two sentences which are reproduces that; one, (In Marathi)“_________________ ___________________________ _________________ ________________________ _____________________ _______________________________________ and two, “________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
____________________________________________”.
(iii) It is to note that I have clearly mentioned the period of information sought by me in item no. (2) of my application.
(iv) While observing both the sentences in reply given by Dr. Bhogle, PIO and in comparison to the information sought by me, it can be seen clearly that Dr. Bhogle is either unable to read properly due to his illiteracy or he is knowingly pretending to be innocent to understand the matter. It is very clear that he is ignoring the duties assigned to him and knowingly trying to mislead the matter and misguiding to divert his responsibilities to other departments but it also seems that he is saying lies to cover that his is a poor literate, if so, it is a big question that how he has got appointed in public service? It is very unfortunate for the citizens and state of Maharashtra to have such inefficient & incapable public servants appointed in public service and being cause for increase in burden on over loaded economy of the state.
CHECK POINT NO. 3
It is clearly mentioned in sub-section (8) of section 7 that the Public Information Officer shall communicate to the person making the request;
i. The reasons for such rejection
ii. The period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred and
iii. The particulars of the appellate authority.
OBSERVATIONS ON CHECK POINT NO.3
Moreover to denying the information for baseless & unjustified reason, the Dr. Bhogle, PIO did not mention the name & address of the Appellate Authority to whom the Applicant can make an Appeal and by this act the PIO has broken the democratic rights of the Applicant.
4. CONDUCT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
While observing the facts come out from the details in Para 3 above, 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.
5. OTHER REMARKS AND REFERENCES;
Though, it is clearly provided in RTI Act 2005 that there is no need to give any reason while seeking any information under this act. However, due to such negative attitude of public servants like Dr. Bhogle, the provisions of this act are being dishonored. I have been forced to submit that the requisite information is required to prepare the recoveries of public money due on public servants of secretariat to whom undue salary has been paid even for the periods when they were not present on work. I have collected the data records of 2008 of public servants of various departments of secretariat which was provided to me by Shri B. N. Sable, PIO & Under Secretary of DIT vide letter No. ______________________ dated 04.02.2009. A copy of his letter and CD is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-IV at pages- 6 to 8 for perusal. It is, therefore, felt appropriate that the maximum possible records should be made available so that maximum possible public money can be recovered and hence I am in need of all available data of every public servant which may not be available in their departments in case of transfers from a department to the other. We have initiated the action from Social Justice and Special Assistance Department and a copy of “SUMMARY OF RECOVERIES OF PUBLIC MONEY DUE ON PUBLIC SERVANTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARIAT OF MAHARASHTRA FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 2008 TO DECEMBER 2008” is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-V at pages-9 to 11 as an example for your ready reference so that it will become easy for you to understand the sensitivity & importance of the requisite information.
6. 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.
|
Particulars of information
|
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) Nature and subject matter of the information required
|
:
|
Information in the form of Diskettes and zerox copies regarding attendance details of public servants of secretariat of Mantralaya of Maharashtra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) Name of the Officer or Department to which the information relates
|
:
|
Directorate of Information Technology,
Secretariat of Mantralaya of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
|
DA: Annexures I to V (Pages 11)
Date: 12.04.2010 Signature of Appellant
Place: Mumbai.
