Delay in providing info: XEN fined Rs 25,000

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 16

The State Information Commission has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on an executive engineer (XEN) of the PWD (B&R) for delay of seven months in providing information to an information seeker under the Right to Information Act.

The Commission has also directed him to refund the amount of Rs 3,288 received from the information seeker as document fees, as there was inordinate delay on part of the XEN Manoj Ola, posted at Provincial Division at Hansi and was also State Public Information Officer (SPIO) under the RTI Act.

The State Information Commissioner Hemat Atri, who passed these orders on the appeal filed by Krishan Lal, a contractor from Kurukshetra, also directed the Superintending Engineer of the Hisar circle of the PWD (B&R) to deduct penalty amount of Rs 25,000 in five equal instalments of Rs 5,000 each from Ola’s salary.

The order said that upon being asked, the XEN admitted that the RTI application in question was received in his office on October 12 last year and a document fee of Rs 3,288 was sought from the appellant on November 8 that year.

However, no information was furnished to the appellant despite depositing the document fee, due to which the appellant moved into first appeal on December 12 last.

However, despite orders of the first appellate authority (FAA) on January 12 that the information should be supplied within seven days, the XEN supplied the information on June 4 only.

When asked about the delay, the XEN claimed that some of junior engineers were transferred, so there was a delay of seven months.

The Commission, however, observed that this cannot be a justification for delay as the records were available under the active control of the SPIO.

“The Commission is shocked to observe that the respondent SPIO despite categorical directions from the Commission, has furnished unattested information to the appellant. Upon being asked, the respondent SPIO had no satisfactory reply as to why he defied the Commission’s directions and furnished unattested information. This is not only carelessness but also arrogance on part of respondent SPIO which cannot be taken lightly,” Atri observed in his order.