In an application under RTI, certain information (not barred by section 8 of the RTI Act) was requested, which was delayed by 8 months and the information provided was wrong and misleading. The case finally went before the Information Commissioner (IC), who in the interim order issued show cause notice to the PIO seeking explanation for the delay and called upon why penalty under the Act should not be imposed upon him. In the final hearing, it was found that no cause/explanation was affored by the PIO, yet the IC, without citing any reasons whatsoever, failed to impose penalty. Also, held that whatever information provided by the PIO was sufficient without justifying his stand against my allegations. During the inspection of the file (carried out under RTI Act) in which the said adjudication process took place, it was found that the IC initially decided to impose a fine of Rs. 25000/- on the PIO and also directed him to provide all the information as per the application. This fact came to light when two documents in the file revealed that a draft order to the above effect had already been prepared along with a letter to the Head of the organisation to recover the fine from the salary of the PIO and deposit in the Govt. treasury. However, this draft was not signed by the IC but initials were made by him at the foot of the draft stating "PIO met me and promised to give information within one hour." Duly attested copies of these two documents have been obtained under RTI. A Complaint was made to the Lokayukta making PIO, Head of the organisation, IC and Chief IC as respondents. Hon'ble Lokayukta has informed that he does not have jurisdiction over PIO, IC and Chief IC since they are 'judges' under RTI Act. But no action so far has been taken against the Head of the organisation. Also, a complaint has been filed with the Governor of Maharashtra who has powers to remove the IC, but in vein. Almost one year has passed. Now the IC as well as the Head of the organisation have retired. Please advise for further course of action in the matter, as also specifically clarify whether the two documents referred above can be treated as incriminating documents against the IC. Please clarify whether the the Head of the organisation as well as IC stand absolved of thier mid-deeds by virtue of their retirement. Obliged for the advice.
