Burning update,

Raipur.
A fine of 25 thousand rupees each has been imposed on four public information officers. Disciplinary action was recommended against the present CEO of Janpad Panchayat Kartla. The Right to Information Act 2005 is effective for the purpose of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of government and administration in a democratic system. This act is proving to be a milestone in making the citizens aware of the activities of the government.

The Information Commissioner of Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Dhanvendra Jaiswal, has passed orders to take disciplinary action against four public information officers for not complying with the Right to Information Act on time, imposing a fine of 25 thousand rupees each on the senior officer. . Under the Right to Information Act, Sharad Devangan, Sriram Colony Beladula Raigad filed three applications to the then Public Information Officer and Secretary Gram Panchayat Jondhara, District Panchayat Masturi Second Appeal Case No. A/3112/2017, A/3113/2017 and A/3114/ Complained to the commission due to non-compliance with the 2017 decision
State Information Commissioner Jaiswal provided ample opportunity to both sides to hear both sides. He instructed the Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Bilaspur that if the then Public Information Officer and Secretary Gram Panchayat Jondhra Rajkumar Madhukar has not given charge, then he should give charge to the present Secretary and if the then Public Information Officer and Secretary Gram Panchayat Jondhara has not given charge Take strict disciplinary action against

Similarly, Sharad Devangan, Sriram Colony Beladula Raigad applied to the then Public Information Officer and Secretary Gram Panchayat Senwara, District Panchayat Pendra and demanded a certified copy of the auction register maintained in the panchayat from April 1, 2016 to November 30, 2018. When the information was not received, the first appeal was made, but the instructions of the first appellate officer were not followed, so he filed a second appeal in the State Information Commission. State Information Commissioner Jaswal issued a notice on behalf of the Commission and asked to appear in the hearing with the reply.
But the then public information officer Gram Panchayat Senwara Brijlal Agaria did not attend the hearing of the commission and also did not send any reply to the commission.

This act of the then Public Information Officer Gram Panchayat Senwara Brijlal Agaria shows the carelessness and indifference. Information Commissioner Jaswal got angry and imposed a fine of 25 thousand rupees under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and directed the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Pendra, to recover the amount of fine from the salary of the concerned Public Information Officer. inform

Rudreshwar Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Tinmini Tehsil Pussour District Raigarh submitted two applications to the then Public Information Officer Gram Panchayat Tinmini Janpad Panchayat Pussour in the years 2016-17 and 2017-18 from which items the panchayat received money, what was the use of these funds. – What actions were taken? He demanded a photocopy of his cash book, bank passbook and attested copy of the bill voucher. The then Public Information Officer sent a demand letter to the applicant but did not mention the copies of the documents. Second in the commission due to non-decision by the first appellate officer
During the hearing of the second appeal, State Information Commissioner Jaswal found that the demand letter sent to the applicant did not mention the number of documents. Even after repeated opportunities, the then Public Information Officer Gram Panchayat Tinmini Janpad Panchayat Pusour Anita Sidar did not submit any reply to the Commission.

Commissioner Jaswal, after hearing the appellant and the Public Information Officer under the Act, taking seriously the failure to provide information to the appellant within the time limit and the failure to respond to the Commission’s letters under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ) imposed a financial penalty of 25 thousand rupees on both the cases and instructed the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Pusour to recover the amount of financial penalty from the salary of the concerned Public Information Officer and inform the Commission.

The applicant Akash Vairagi Gobarsingha, Raigarh has submitted an application to the then Public Information Officer Gram Panchayat Barpali Janpad Panchayat Pusour on 18 January 2019 to provide the applicant with a copy of all the cash books related to income and expenditure from the date of appointment of the present Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tribhauna to the applied date. . The Public Information Officer informed the applicant about the information of one year and one subject. The First Appellate Officer accepted the reply of the Public Information Officer as correct. Aggrieved by that, the applicant filed a second appeal with the Commission. Observe the case of Commissioner Jaswal

After hearing the appellant and the Public Information Officer under the Act, taking seriously the failure to provide information to the appellant within the time limit and the non-response to the Commission’s letters on both the cases under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 A fine of 25 thousand rupees was imposed and the Chief Executive Officer instructed the District Panchayat Pusour to recover the amount of fine from the salary of the concerned Public Information Officer and inform the Commission.