Text
stringlengths 1
133
⌀ | INDIAN POLITY
stringlengths 1
95
⌀ |
|---|---|
would justify the recommendation by the Commission of taking | null |
disciplinary action against the appellant. The appellant had | null |
received the application from respondent No.2 requiring the | null |
information sought for on 3rd January, 2007. He had, much within | null |
the period of 30 days (specified under Section 7), sent the | null |
application to the concerned department requiring them to furnish | null |
27 | null |
Page 27 | null |
the requisite information. The information had not been received. | null |
May be after the expiry of the prescribed period, another letter | null |
was written by the department to respondent No.2 to state the | null |
period for which the information was asked for. This letter was | null |
written on 11th April, 2007. To this letter, respondent No.2 did not | null |
respond at all. In fact, he made no further query to the office of | null |
the designated Public Information Officer as to the fate of his | null |
application and instead preferred an appeal before the Collector | null |
and thereafter appeal before the State Information Commission. | null |
In the meanwhile, the appellant had been transferred in the | null |
Excise Department from Nanded to Akola. At this stage, we may | null |
recapitulate the relevant dates. The application was filed on 3rd | null |
January, 2007, upon which the appellant had acted and vide his | null |
letter dated 19th January, 2007 had forwarded the application for | null |
requisite information to the concerned department. The appeal | null |
was filed by respondent no.2 under Section 19(1) of the Act before | null |
the Collector, Nanded on 1st March, 2007. On 4th March, 2007, the | null |
appeal was forwarded to the office of the Excise Department. On | null |
4th April, 2007, the appellant had been transferred from Nanded to | null |
Akola. On 11th April, 2007, other officer from the Department had | null |
28 | null |
Page 28 | null |
asked respondent no.2 to specify the period for which the | null |
information was required. If the appellant was given an | null |
opportunity and had appeared before the Commission, he might | null |
have been able to explain that there was reasonable cause and he | null |
had taken all reasonable steps within his power to comply with the | null |
provisions. The Commission is expected to formulate an opinion | null |
that must specifically record the finding as to which part of | null |
Section 20(2) the case falls in. For instance, in relation to failure | null |
to receive an application for information or failure to furnish the | null |
information within the period specified in Section 7(1), it should | null |
also record the opinion if such default was persistent and without | null |
reasonable cause. | null |
28. It appears that the facts have not been correctly noticed and, | null |
in any case, not in their entirety by the State Information | null |
Commission. It had formed an opinion that the appellant was | null |
negligent and had not performed the duty cast upon him. The | null |
Commission noticed that there was 73 days delay in informing the | null |
applicant and, thus, there was negligence while performing duties. | null |
If one examines the provisions of Section 20(2) in their entirety | null |
29 | null |
Page 29 | null |
then it becomes obvious that every default on the part of the | null |
concerned officer may not result in issuance of a recommendation | null |
for disciplinary action. The case must fall in any of the specified | null |
defaults and reasoned finding has to be recorded by the | null |
Commission while making such recommendations. ‘Negligence’ | null |
per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) | null |
of the Act can be invoked. The Commission must return a finding | null |
that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without | null |
reasonable cause. In our considered view, the Commission, in the | null |
present case, has erred in not recording such definite finding. The | null |
appellant herein had not failed to receive any application, had not | null |
failed to act within the period of 30 days (as he had written a | null |
letter calling for information), had not malafidely denied the | null |
request for information, had not furnished any incorrect or | null |
misleading information, had not destroyed any information and | null |
had not obstructed the furnishing of the information. On the | null |
contrary, he had taken steps to facilitate the providing of | null |
information by writing the stated letters. May be the letter dated | null |
11th April, 2007 was not written within the period of 30 days | null |
requiring respondent No.2 to furnish details of the period for which | null |
30 | null |
Page 30 | null |
such information was required but the fact remained that such | null |
letter was written and respondent No.2 did not even bother to | null |
respond to the said enquiry. He just kept on filing appeal after | null |
appeal. After April 4, 2007, the date when the appellant was | null |
transferred to Akola, he was not responsible for the acts of | null |
omissions and/or commission of the office at Nanded. | null |
29. Another aspect of this case which needs to be examined by | null |
the Court is that the appeal itself has not been decided though it | null |
has so been recorded in the impugned order. The entire | null |
impugned order does not direct furnishing of the information | null |
asked for by respondent No.1. It does not say whether such | null |
information was required to be furnished or not or whether in the | null |
facts of the case, it was required of respondent No.2 to respond to | null |
the letter dated 11th April, 2007 written by the Department to him. | null |
All these matters were requiring decision of the Commission | null |
before it could recommend the disciplinary action against the | null |
appellant, particularly, in the facts of the present case. | null |
30. All the attributable defaults of a Central or State Public | null |
Information Officer have to be without any reasonable cause and | null |
31 | null |
Page 31 | null |
persistently. In other words, besides finding that any of the stated | null |
defaults have been committed by such officer, the Commission | null |
has to further record its opinion that such default in relation to | null |
receiving of an application or not furnishing the information within | null |
the specified time was committed persistently and without a | null |
reasonable cause. Use of such language by the Legislature clearly | null |
Subsets and Splits