Not satisfied at all. Even a very junior level employees, an inspector, from the Deptt. of Post attended the hearing. When I objected to this and said that either PIO or some Sr. employee of that level should be present from the Deptt., but this did not cut an ice with the IC. The inspector tried to give assurances about the handling of speed posts on behalf of Secy. Deptt. of Post but we know that the Secy. may not even be aware of such assurances being given on his behalf and even may not grant time to an inspector to meet him on this issue to know the first hand information. Tomorrow, the Deptt. may send some peon or clear in the hearing and that will not be acceptable but the IC was unfazed on this issue.
On my insistence to penalize the PIO for the delay in reply by the PIO which I proved on the basis of documents, IC agreed to issue notice to the PIO. Let us await for the order and see that on this issue.
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC
I explained why he is one of the 3 "duffers".
PS: Are you satisfied with the manner he conducted \the proceedings.
On Sep 1, 12:03 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> My appeal against the Deptt. of Post was heard on 23rd August, 2012 by Shri Basant Seth, Hon'ble Information Commissioner. Till date, I fail to spot any decision on the CIC's website. On searching the decisions, I found that the last decision of Shri Seth on the CIC's website pertain to 14th August. The delay of 15 days to announce the decision or to put the same on the website is too much and speak poorly about ICs. However, appreciably, I found the decisions of the cases heard on 31 and 30 by by CCIC, Satyanana Mishra, Ms. Sushma Singh and Ms. Deepak Sandhu, ICs. Other Commissioners should try to follow this example.
No comments:
Post a Comment