The Hans India: Hyderabad: Thursday,
March 23, 2017.
The Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RTI) has replaced the British era’s Official Secrets
Act, 1923. But to the surprise of discerning citizens, the officials of the
Telangana Secretariat are still living in the past sticking to the old
enactment of 1920s.
For reasons
better known to them, the PIOs of various departments in the Secretariat are
refusing to divulge information to the applications under the RTI. Probably
they are afraid that the irregularities and misuse of funds in their respective
departments would surface if they reveal the information.
The Hans
India submitted applications under the RTI to 10 departments in the State
Secretariat seeking information regarding the cases filed by the Vigilance and
Enforcement officials against the irregularities and misuse of funds in their
respective departments. They also sought details of number of cases, evidence
and recommendations forwarded against such officials, and the present status of
the cases.
The
officials, who provide information regarding the reports of vigilance and the
Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and even affidavits submitted in the court by
media representatives without applying under the RTI, have refused to divulge
information to the RTI applications which means they are bent to protect the
persons indulged in irregularities.
It is
understood that Assistant Secretary and PIO of Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development and Fisheries, DV Varalakshmi forwarded the full reports and the
actions recommended against the officials in three cases filed by the Vigilance
and Enforcement officials.
However, PIO
and Assistant Secretary of Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies department
R Surya Kumar stated in the reply that as per the section 8(1)(h) of RTI act
2005, it is informed that since no V&E case has been completed/finalised by
the government, the information as desired cannot be furnished.
Health,
Medical and Family Welfare Department’s PIO and Assistant Secretary D Lalitha
Kumari said in the reply that one case have been (sic) registered by the
Vigilance & Enforcement against the officials working in the Head of
Department of Drugs Control Administration, Telangana State and accordingly the
disciplinary proceedings have been initiated which is under examination. In
this regard, I am to state that as per section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005
there shall be no obligation to give any citizen that “information which would
impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders.”
Finance
Department’s Public Information Officer EVV Nageshwara Rao stated in the reply,
“I am to invite kind attention to the reference cited. It is informed that, as
per para 8(h), Chapter-II of RTI Act 2005, the disclosure of requested
information is exempted.”
Environment,
Forest, Science and Technology department’s PIO and Assistant Secretary, M
Mahesh, said in a brief reply that 38 vigilance and ACB cases have been filed
against various officials in the past two-and-a-half years. The PIO of the
Higher Education department who received the RTI applications transferred the
same to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. The PIO of the Collegiate
Education stated in the brief reply that only one case was filed in the
department.
However, the
PIOs of Commissioner of Intermediate and Directorate of Technical Education
departments did not respond to the RTI applications till date even after two
months. Backward Classes Welfare Department’s PIO and Assistant Secretary B G
Sumathi replied briefly that 18 ACB cases and three vigilance cases were filed
against the officials in the department.
.JPG)
.JPG)
