Bank dismissed hundreds of illegal appointments in view of CBI follow up
Ref: Seeking voluminous information through a single RTI application
On receipt of any RTI application, PIO's and FAA's first want to find out if any lame excuses could be attributed to refuse information They feel if any information is given, their higher officials may not like.
Hence, they want to thwart any attempt to elicit information from that particular Public Authority, by quoting Sec. 8. They conveniently forget Sec.10 which elaborates Severability clause.
For example, in one case Indian Overseas Bank Head Office, Chennai, replied to an application with 23 points, whereas they refused another with 26 points, as the latter will expose the Bank's violation of procedure. What a logic? In another, regarding Recruitment scam in IOB involving bribery of several crores, Bank denied that there was no scam. CBI arrested 10 staff,
Bank dismissed hundreds of illegal appointments in view of CBI follow up. But their reply to RTI application was "there is no recruitment scam"
What is the way out? Second appeal takes years, by which time these officials happily retire with all benefits. They should be made accountable.
Name: Thomas Karunanithi
Email id: firstname.lastname@example.org