CIC cracks down on DOPT over file notings

2 Erring Officials Could Face A Year In Jail

Manoj Mitta | TNN 

Publication: Times Of India Delhi;  Date: Jun 3, 2009;  Section: Front Page;  Page: 1  

New Delhi: In an unprecedented move, the Central Information Commission on Tuesday issued notices to two officers of the department of personnel and training (DoPT), the nodal department of RTI, to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for offences that could land them behind bars for a whole year. 

    The provocation was DoPT’s refusal despite repeated directions to correct the misleading claim on its website that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under RTI. 

    CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to appear on June 17 to explain why they should not be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and penalized under RTI. 

    While other public authorities, including the Supreme Court, have long accepted the CIC’s ruling that file notings were not exempt from disclosure, DoPT has maintained otherwise on its website, much to the CIC’s chagrin. 

    TAKING NOTE 

    Despite repeated directions, DoPT has refused to correct misleading claim on its site that file notings are not part of info that can be disclosed under RTI 

    CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah has summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to explain why they should not be 

prosecuted under Indian Penal Code 

    CIC says two officers liable under Section 166 IPC, which punishes ‘public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person’ DoPT officials may have to pay 25k fine 

New Delhi: CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah has taken exception to DoPT’s refusal to correct the misleading claim on its website that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under RTI. Habibullah found it “appalling” that the nodal department of RTI had “sought to emasculate the mandate” of Section 19(7) which stipulates that the CIC’s decisions were “binding”. 

    On an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the CIC said that by disobeying its directions, the two DoPT officers had rendered themselves liable to be punished under Section 166 IPC, which imposes imprisonment up to one year on a “public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person.” The other two offences cited in the order are punishable with imprisonment up to six months: while Section 187 pertains to “omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance”, Section 188 deals with “disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.” 

    Besides responding to allegations of committing criminal offences, Sarkar and Chagti will have to explain on June 17 why each of them shouldn’t be imposed the maximum prescribed penalty under RTI of Rs 25,000.