Indian
Express: Pune: Thursday, 26 March 2015.
State
information commissioners (SICs) seem reluctant to use one of the most potent
tools that has been made available to them to make Public Information Officers
(PIOs) and Appellate Authorities (AAs) comply with RTI guidelines.
SICs have
been granted the powers to impose fines on erring officials. The fines imposed
is deducted from the salary of the officials.
Data obtained
by The Indian Express under the Right to Information (RTI) Act reveals that in
2014 fines were imposed in less than 10 per cent of the second appeals filed
before SICs.
Data from
several SIC offices in the state, shows that the number of officials fined had
gone down as compared to the figures in 2013.
The maximum
fine imposed by the SICs on PIOs and AAs is Rs 25,000. They are fined if they
are found to have failed to adhere to provisions of the RTI Act.
In 2014, the
Nashik SIC bench fined 131 officers and which is the highest so far in the
state. The Nagpur SIC bench imposed fines on just seven officials, the lowest
figure in the state. For a long time, the Nagpur bench did not have a full-time
SIC and it was attributed to low rate of disposal of cases and poor imposition
of fines. Pune bench fined only 14 officers.
Amravati
imposed fines on 49 officials, Aurangabad on 98, Brihanmumbai 54 and Nashik 33.
An analysis of fines imposed show that Rs 55,000 Pune SIC bench imposed on
erring officials was the lowest in the state. Aurangabad topped with Rs 10.38
lakh. The fines imposed on officials in Amravati, Brihanmumbai, Nashik, Nagpur
(lowest) and Konkan were Rs 3.25 lakh, Rs 10 lakh, Rs 8.12 lakh, Rs 75,000 and
Rs 7.77 lakh respectively.
Comparison of
the annual report 2013 submitted by the Information Commissioner’s office shows
that in certain cases, the number of officials on whom fines were levied had
gone down.
In 2013, the
Nashik SIC imposed fines on 203 officials, the Pune SIC fined 62 officials,
Aurangabad SIC fined 75 officers and Brihanmumbai SIC fined 14 officers.
Former
central information commissioner (CIC) Shailesh Gandhi said the SIC had to
satisfy itself that there was inordinate delay in giving information sought
through the RTI route. “Proving it becomes tough at times. However, fines are a
very important provision in the Act and if SICs do not impose fines, officials
would not fear not adhering to norms of the RTI Act. On an average, SICs should
impose fines in 70-100 cases to maintain an equilibrium,” he said.
RTI activist
Vijay Kumbhar raised doubts on the hesitation of SICs to impose fines.
Kumbhar says,
“It is clear that they are deliberately not imposing fine on officials. And why
would they fine somebody who had earlier worked with them or under them?”
Kumbhar said
the appointment of SICs itself raises questions. He said, “SICs who worked as
district collectors or divisional commissioners before their retirement are
being appointed as state information commissioners in the same area where they
have served earlier. Why would they fine officials who worked as their
juniors?”
.JPG)
.JPG)
