Times of India: Chandigarh: Friday,
4 October 2024.
The Punjab State Information
Commission has overturned a penalty imposed on a public information officer
(PIO) and the compensation awarded to Congress legislator Pargat Singh, deeming
the penalty “unsustainable” and the compensation “unreasonable”.
Chief information commissioner (CIC) Inderpal Singh made these remarks while addressing the MLA’s appeal for details on public advertisement cost from March 2022 to the present, which included expenditures on web, electronic, print, radio, and Google/YouTube ads. He had also sought a breakdown of the funds that the govt had channelled to media houses for various campaigns.
Assigned initially to state information commissioner Amrit Partap Singh Sekhon, this case was moved, later, to Asit Jolly upon the appellant’s request. During the hearing, the PIO had received a show-cause notice along with directions to respond to the RTI application. The officer released information on one aspect of the ad expenditure but claimed details about a second point to be unavailable because of third-party association and cited no provision in the RTI Act requiring the creation of information. The PIO claimed to have obtained the responses from relevant branches, including advertisement, electronic media, and social media.
The CIC noted that the previous commissioner had mandated the PIO to submit information about the second point. Ultimately, 404 pages of information were submitted to the appellant in a format not available in the official records. The PIO, as ordered, submitted proof of sending this information to Pargat Singh and the case was reserved for decision, which came out on June 26.
Held guilty initially, the PIO faced a penalty of Rs 25,000, while a compensation of Rs 15,000 was awarded to Pargat Singh, who skipped the last hearing without prior notice despite receiving a copy of the hearing notice via registered post. Since Pargat had not returned the notice, the commission deduced that he had received it but opted not to pursue the case further. The respondent, deputy director-cum-PIO, claimed to have supplied the requested-for information upon directions from the commission and requested it to reconsider the penalty and compensation orders.
He claimed being denied a fair opportunity to present his case before the penalty was imposed. CIC Inderpal Singh determined that the Rs 25,000 penalty imposed by his predecessor was not “sustainable” under the law. The PIO was discharged from any obligation to pay this penalty, since there is no legal requirement for information creation. Pargat’s repeated absences from hearings rendered his awarded compensation “unreasonable” and “unsustainable”, since the matter involved no larger public interest and he had received the desired information after its creation. The penalty and compensation orders were withdrawn, which exempted the PIO and associated officers from liabilities.
Chief information commissioner (CIC) Inderpal Singh made these remarks while addressing the MLA’s appeal for details on public advertisement cost from March 2022 to the present, which included expenditures on web, electronic, print, radio, and Google/YouTube ads. He had also sought a breakdown of the funds that the govt had channelled to media houses for various campaigns.
Assigned initially to state information commissioner Amrit Partap Singh Sekhon, this case was moved, later, to Asit Jolly upon the appellant’s request. During the hearing, the PIO had received a show-cause notice along with directions to respond to the RTI application. The officer released information on one aspect of the ad expenditure but claimed details about a second point to be unavailable because of third-party association and cited no provision in the RTI Act requiring the creation of information. The PIO claimed to have obtained the responses from relevant branches, including advertisement, electronic media, and social media.
The CIC noted that the previous commissioner had mandated the PIO to submit information about the second point. Ultimately, 404 pages of information were submitted to the appellant in a format not available in the official records. The PIO, as ordered, submitted proof of sending this information to Pargat Singh and the case was reserved for decision, which came out on June 26.
Held guilty initially, the PIO faced a penalty of Rs 25,000, while a compensation of Rs 15,000 was awarded to Pargat Singh, who skipped the last hearing without prior notice despite receiving a copy of the hearing notice via registered post. Since Pargat had not returned the notice, the commission deduced that he had received it but opted not to pursue the case further. The respondent, deputy director-cum-PIO, claimed to have supplied the requested-for information upon directions from the commission and requested it to reconsider the penalty and compensation orders.
He claimed being denied a fair opportunity to present his case before the penalty was imposed. CIC Inderpal Singh determined that the Rs 25,000 penalty imposed by his predecessor was not “sustainable” under the law. The PIO was discharged from any obligation to pay this penalty, since there is no legal requirement for information creation. Pargat’s repeated absences from hearings rendered his awarded compensation “unreasonable” and “unsustainable”, since the matter involved no larger public interest and he had received the desired information after its creation. The penalty and compensation orders were withdrawn, which exempted the PIO and associated officers from liabilities.
.JPG)
.JPG)
