Re: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders...

Dear Mr Roy,
Does the ICs have power to convert a complaint to appeal? Please guide
me as to under what rule is Mrs SS doing so.

On 5/17/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Karira
>
> In both the examples you have cited, IC(SS) demonstrates how as a
> "seasoned bureaucrat" she is PRO-CITIZEN to ensure that applicant gets
> EITHER his information (EVENTUALLY) or a "reasoned DEPARTMENTAL order
> which can be adjudicated on in appeal (either again before the CIC ..
> recall that Archana Pande case .. or in the High Court).
>
> This is a good strategy on her part to ensure that FAAs cannot get
> away with passing vague orders. She deserves to be complimented for
> this.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On May 15, 11:14 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> IC Sushma Singh is known for her copy/paste orders (in spite of Mr
>> Sarbajit claiming that she is a seasoned bureaucrat)
>> seems to be now going overboard in her zeal to dispose matters before her
>> and reduce pendency ! Looks as if disposal is the other word fro remanding
>> back:
>>
>> (Asking FAA to decide on Penalty)
>>
>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_001982_T_8214...
>>
>> 4. Having considered the submissions of the CPIO and the appellant, the
>> Commission observes that there is a delay of 42 days in providing of
>> requisite
>> records to the appellant. The documents requested on 9.6.2011 after
>> inspection,
>> were provided only on 22.7.2011. The FAA, CESTAT is hereby directed to
>> consider the submissions of Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and identify the
>> person
>> responsible for the delay and recover the penalty amount from him. If both
>> are
>> responsible, the penalty should be recovered on pro-rata basis from both
>> Shri
>> Mohinder Singh, CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO.
>>
>> 5. Penalty of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) for the
>> delay of 42 days @ Rs. 250/- per day is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act,
>> 2005,
>> which shall be recovered in 5 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,100/- (Rupees
>> two
>> thousand one hundred only) either from both Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and
>> Shri Pramod Kumar, deemed CPIO on pro-rata basis or from any one of them,
>> identified responsible for the delay, by the FAA, from their pay and
>> allowances
>> from the month starting June, 2012 to October, 2012.
>>
>> ===================
>>
>> (Remanding back even when FAA has passed an order)
>>
>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2012_000243_M_8265...
>>
>> 4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, it is the contention
>> of
>> the appellant thateven after passing of the order by the FAA dated
>> 5.7.2011,
>> directing the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in
>> respect
>> of Point 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), complete and correct
>> information
>> has not been provided to him by the CPIO in his letter dated 12.8.2011.
>> The
>> CPIO on the other hand submits that he had complied with the directions of
>> the
>> FAA.
>> 5. In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the appellant with the
>> replies
>> provided to him by the CPIO, the matter is remitted back to the FAAwith
>> the
>> direction to provide information by passing a speaking order in respect of
>> Point
>> 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), by treating the second appeal
>> filed before
>> the Commission as first appeal, within three weeks of receipt of this
>> order.
>>
>> Can someone clarify whether she is "Information Commissioner" or
>> "Remanding Commissioner" ?
>>
>> RTIwanted


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181