A superintendent-level official of Haryana residence division is dealing with a penalty for a response delayed by 9 days to an RTI utility filed by a senior IPS officer of the state, Y Puran Kumar.
In November this 12 months, the state authorities posted Kumar, a 2001 batch IPS officer, as IGP (telecommunications) with further cost of emergency response help system (ERSS)— a 24X7 emergency response system for residents in emergencies.
The event had taken place after the intervention of state Residence Minister Anil Vij following a grievance by Kumar that he had been posted on a “non-cadre and non-existing publish” of IGP (residence guards).
The IPS officer had filed an RTI utility to the house division’s state public info officer (SPIO) on August 14 urging him to supply the inspection of full data concerning promotion of the 1997 batch IPS officers from the rank of IGP to ADGP.
When the IPS officer didn’t obtain the data in time, he approached the state info fee stating the SPIO was duty-bound to offer the requisite info to him inside 30 days as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The officer alleged that the SPIO intentionally and malafidely didn’t furnish the data.
Nonetheless, SPIO Dharmender Batra, a superintendent within the residence division, knowledgeable the Fee that the IPS officer was duly knowledgeable — by way of a letter on September 22 — that the file associated to promotion of 1997 batch IPS officers is below lively consideration/course of. In keeping with Batra, the officer was additionally informed that “as and when a choice is taken by the competent authority within the matter, he shall be knowledgeable accordingly”.
In the course of the listening to earlier than the Fee on November 16 this 12 months, Kumar knowledgeable state Data Commissioner Satyavir Singh Phulia that he has inspected the related data and has acquired the requisite info. “Although the requisite info has been furnished by the…SPIO with a delay of three months however I don’t need to pursue my case additional.” The IPS officer additionally prayed to the Fee that the complainant’s case might kindly be closed.
However the state info commissioner noticed that the complainant (IPS officer)’s RTI utility ought to have been responded to by the SPIO by September 13 (inside 30 days) however the identical was responded to by a delay of 9 days (on September 22). In his current order, Phulia acknowledged that the SPIO has not defined any affordable trigger for delay in responding to the complainant’s RTI utility observing that “he has not discharged his obligations below the RTI Act diligently” which attracts the penal motion below the provisions of the RTI Act.
The state info commissioner ordered to difficulty a discover to the SPIO asking him to indicate trigger as to why a penalty for delay in responding to the IPS officer’s RTI utility on this case be not imposed upon him.
The SPIO has additionally been requested to submit his reply to the Fee by January 25, 2024, other than being personally current through the listening to on the Fee on February 12.