Are the penal provisions of the RTI Act being used properly?
8 Mar, 2013The penal provisions have been provided in the RTI Act, 2005 to ensure compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act. It has often been seen that the Information Commissions have been lenient in imposing the penalty and there is no system to ensure compliance with even these miniscule cases where penalty has been imposed. The Information Commissions, whether of centre or the state, have a huge responsibility at their shoulders. The work of the Central Information Commission has been under intense public scrutiny, partly because it happens to be located at the capital. There are many State Information Commissions working all over the country with the responsibility of ensuring the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005. Unfortunately, there have been very few empirical studies which can shed light on the functioning of these organisations. Their role is paramount as they are supposed to be the watchdogs for safeguarding the effective enactment of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Mr Pradip Pradhan has done a study regarding the “Recommendation of Disciplinary Proceedings made by Odisha State Information Commission against erring PIOs” and his findings are summarised below. He has pointed out many un-discussed aspects of functioning of State Information Commission in the article presented below:-
On 9.11.12, I had submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office of Odisha Information Commission seeking information about details of Disciplinary proceedings recommended by the Information Commission between 2006 and 2012. The PIO did not supply the information and an appeal was filed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). On 28.12.12, the FAA ordered to supply the information within 10 days but the PIO took another month to supply the information on 28.1.13.
As per section 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act, the Information Commission is empowered to recommend disciplinary proceedings against the erring PIO/ deemed PIO for persistently denying the information without any reasonable cause. While adjudicating the complaints/ second appeals, Shri T.K.Mishra and Shri Jagadanand Mohanty, Information Commissioners at Odisha SIC ordered disciplinary proceedings against PIOs in 9 and 11 cases respectively. Details of cases in which disciplinary proceedings have been recommended is as follows:-
Sl.No |
Shri Tarun Kanti Mishra |
||||
1 |
Name of officer/employee with designation against whom DP recommended |
Case No. |
Date of Decision |
Name of complainant/ appellant with address |
Remarks |
2 |
Debasish Jena, Principal and Trilochan Dalai, PIO and Lect. In Odiya, BJB College, Gadarodang, Puri |
CC No.- 2275/09 |
24.2.12 |
Laxaman Baral, Bentapur, Brahmagiri, Puri |
No compliance till yet though more than one year has passed. |
3 |
Pratap Ch. Barik, Constable No. 1619, Bidanasi Police station, Cuttack |
CC No.- 1524/09 |
24.5.12 |
Bhabani Sankar Mohanty, Bidanasi Cuttack |
No compliance till date. |
4 |
Bimal Ch. Tiriya, the then PIO-cum-Assistant Engineer-Estimator, R.W. Division , Puri |
CC No. – 1909/09 |
24.5.12 |
Ranjit Patnaik, Kedar Gouri square, Bhubaneswar |
Compliance report submitted on 16.6.12. |
5 |
Concerned delinquent official , O/O-Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Jajpur |
S.A. No-275/10 |
29.5.12 |
Rama Ch. Barik, patharapada, panikoili, jajpur |
No compliance report submitted till yet |
6 |
Jamuna Behera, PIO-cum-Supervisor, O/O-CDPO, mahakalapada, Kendrapara district |
CC No. 1401/10 |
29.5.12 |
Nayanmani Samal, Rajagarh, Via-Sri Baldev jew, Kendrapara |
Compliance report Received on 13.7.12 |
7 |
Gourang Ch. Sutar, Executive Officer, Hasanabad GP, Dhamnagar Block, Bhadrak district |
SA No- 228/11 |
5.7.12 |
Rabindra Ku. Das, hasanabad, Bhadrak |
No Compliance report submitted yet. |
8 |
The then PIO, Collect orate, Kalahandi |
CC No. 766/11 |
9.7.12 |
Debadatta Panda, Junagarh, Kalahandi |
No Compliance report. |
9 |
Ramesh Ch. Prusty, Sr. Assistant, Directorate of Higher Education, Odisha |
SA No.- 390/12 |
5.9.12 |
Laxman Pradhan, advocate, High Court, Odisha |
Compliance Report received on 4.1.13 |
|
Shri Jagadanand Mohanty |
||||
1 |
Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Marketing inspector, Basudevpur NAC, Bhadrak |
SA No- 24/12 |
12.7.12 |
Dillip Nayak, Bhadrak |
No Compliance report submitted till yet |
2 |
PIO, Barachana Panchayat samiti, Jajpur |
CC No. 1107/11 |
27.7.12 |
Narahari satapathy, Nanapur, Post-Balichandrapur, Jajpur |
No compliance report submitted till yet. |
3 |
SaroJ Kumar Jena, incharge GPEO and Gokulanand Behera, ex-PIO presently Head Clerck |
CC No. 4070/11 |
27.7.12 |
Basanta Swain, Puruna Tigiria, Cuttack |
Compliance report submitted |
4 |
Manas Jena, Senior clerck, Raj kishor Mohapatra, VLW , Rama Ch. Samantaray senior clerck, Mahakalapada Panchayat samiti, Kendrapara district |
CC No. 2578/09 |
3.8.12 |
Nayanamani samal, Kendrapara |
Compliance report submitted. |
5 |
CDPO, Chandrapur ICDS, Rayagada |
CC 176/09 |
10.8.12 |
Bansi raj Majhi, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi |
No compliance report submitted so far. |
6 |
Gopal Ch. Jena, Ex-Executive Officer, Bagabar GP, Posted in mayurbhanj |
SA No- 93/12 |
27.8.12 |
Kalakahnu Rath, Birmaharaj Pur, Dist-Sonepur |
No compliance report submitted so far. |
7 |
Rajendra Singhali, Ex-executive officer, Panchanan Baboo, Surendra Singh, Lokanath Rana, all the incumbent executive officers of Tangarpali GP |
CC 2701/10 |
13.9.12 |
Jahnabi Nayak, Kuarbaga, Sundargarh |
Compliance report submitted |
8 |
Srikar Ch. Nayak, ex-BDO, Pancahayat Samiti, Balisankara of Sundargarh |
CC No.- 2769/10 & 3210/10 |
7.9.12 |
Uddit Pratap Deo, Talasara, Sundargarh, Narasingha Kujur |
No compliance report submitted so far. |
9 |
Daniel Ekka, Ex-BDO, Kuchinda Block, Sambalpur |
CC No.- 1646/10, 1647/10, 1648/10, 1649/10, 1650/10, |
12.9.12 |
Mina Ketan Nayak, Kuchinda |
No compliance report submitted so far. |
10 |
Trilochan Bal, Ex-WEO, Panchayat Samiti, Sukinda, Jajpur |
CC No-2478/10 |
15.10.12 |
Minati Senapati, Damodar Pur, Sukinda |
No compliance report submitted so far. |
11 |
Karunakar Behera, senior clerck, DRAD, Balasore |
CC 1348/09,h |
21.12.12 |
Ranjan Ku. Sarma, Palai, Kendrapara |
No compliance report submitted so far. |
Analysis
- The low number of cases where disciplinary action has been recommended against the PIOs shows that the Odisha SIC has been soft at the time of taking the decision of recommendation of Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring PIOs. The press release by the SIC claiming credit appears to be boisterous.
- On close examine and scrutinizing the compliance report submitted by different Public Authorities, it was found that no disciplinary action has been taken against the any erring PIOs by the authority. These are as follows.
i) In Compliance report on CC No. 1909/09, the Superintendent Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works , Bhubaneswar has written letter dt. 8.6.12 with reference of order of SIC to Chief Engineer to take disciplinary proceedings against Bimal Tirtiya, PIO.
ii) In compliance report on SA No. 390/11, the charges against Ramesh Ch. Prusty, Sr. assistant has been dropped with just warning.
iii) In compliance report on CC No. 1401/10, Collector, Kendrapara has written letter to the CDPO, Mahakalapada to frame draft charges against Jamuna Behera, PIO. No disciplinary action taken against her is mentioned.
iv) In compliance report on CC No. 1524/2009, Pratap Kishor Barik, PIO has been awarded punishment “Warning in service Book” and cautioned for future while dealing official letters.
v) In compliance report on CC No. 4070/11, it is written that sub-collector, Athagarh has directed the BDO, Tigiria to take disciplinary action against the Saroj Kumar Jena, PIO for dereliction of duty. But no action has been taken.
vi) In compliance Report on CC No. 2578/09, the Collector, Kendrapara has written letter to the BDO, Mahakalapada to initiate disciplinary action against defaulting officials. No action taken against them so far.
Interpretation
The Odisha State Information Commission (SIC) has recommended Disciplinary proceedings under section 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act in a total number of 20 cases against erring PIOs during the past 7 years.
The Public Authorities have submitted compliance report in 3 out of 9 cases ordered for disciplinary proceedings by Sri Tarun Kanti Mishra, Information Commissioner at the Odisha SIC.
The Public Authorities have complied in 3 out of 11 cases ordered for disciplinary proceedings by Sri Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC, Odisha.
However, the compliance report does not show any concrete action against the erring PIOs. The most serious action which has been taken is issuance of a warning while in other cases, there is no action at all.
This raises serious questions about the credibility of the watchdog organisation and their effectiveness in ensuring compliance from the concerned Public Authorities. is nothing but eye-wash exercise.
Such poor monitoring raises a question why the SIC issues orders with little systematic efforts to ensure their compliance. This gives the Public Authority an option to accept or ignore the order keeping in view their suitability. The Commission should not maintain ominous silence over it and should have a system in place to take follow-up action for seeking compliance. The position of the other Information Commissions in the country would not be any different and needs to be highlighted.
Pradip Pradhan