Three penalties imposed on two PIOs in two financial years but U.P. Government not interested to recover it.

 

In two financial years ,only three imposed penalties on two erring PIOs but unfortunately still to be recovered.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>

8:08 PM (3 minutes ago)

to pmosbhgovupurgent-actioncmupsupremecourtcjcsupsecypgddpg2-arpgsec.siclokayuktauphrclko
Hon’ble Sir. With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows.
 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that under section 4 (1)(d)
Every public authority shall
provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Hon’ble Sir B.D.O. Chhanbey Bhola Nath Kannaujia and B.S.A. Mirzapur Dinesh Kumar Yadav didn’t deposit the imposed penalty as imposed under section 20 of Right to Information Act 2005 by U.P.S.I.C. . Whether wrongdoer B.D.O. will deposit Rs. 25 thousand rupees with interest and B.S.A. will deposit Rs. 50 thousand with interest as required by law to the treasury. Hon’ble Sir please take a glance of attached PDF.
2- It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that D.M. Mirzapur requested to commissioner ,Rural development ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow through letter 947 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from the salary of aforesaid B.D.O. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief secretary. Likewise D.M. Mirzapur  requested to Director , Basic Education , Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow through letter 948 dated 13.01.2014 that imposed penalty may be deducted from the salary of aforesaid B.S.A. and may be deposited to treasury and be apprised to section officer PMO, under secretary CMO and personal secretary to chief secretary . Please take a glance of attached PDF. Whether complainant will not be made available sought information. In two financial years ,only three penalties have been made by UPSIC and not a coin was recovered by government functionaries still and now indirectly D.M. Mirzapur is overlooking the complainant to whom he has to furnish access to information.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that section 6 of Right to Information Act 2005
(3)
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,
(i)
which is held by another public authority; or
(ii)
the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
Whether D.M. Mirzapur don’t want to make available information to your applicant if yes then why? Here it is obvious that sought information is held by Commissioner ,rural development and Director ,basic education so concerned may be directed by the competent authority in order to make available the information as sought by information seeker. Please take a glance of following link-http://yogimpsingh.blogspot.com/2013/12/it-is-unfortunate-that-no-pio-is_22.html
  This is humble request of your applicant to direct concerned authority to make available sought information.  For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir.
                              Yours sincerely
                           Yogi M. P. Singh
Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, District-Mirzapur (U.P.) India.

D.M. Mirzapur cleverly overlooked the information seeker.pdf

 

MAILER-DAEMON@mail.allahabadhighcourt.in

8:08 PM (3 minutes ago)

to me
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.allahabadhighcourt.in.
I’m afraid I wasn’t able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I’ve given up. Sorry it didn’t work out.<cj@allahabadhighcourt.in>:
user is over quota

 

 

4 comments on Three penalties imposed on two PIOs in two financial years but U.P. Government not interested to recover it.

  1. Whether it is rule of law that your friend is seeking information since more than five years in regard to penal action taken by UPSIC against erring PIOs of Mirzapur district . Some times it is told that five penalties have been imposed on four PIOs in two financial years as sought but latter it is told that only three penalties have been imposed on only two PIOs . More surprising is that even these three penalties are still not recovered from the salaries of erring PIOs which implies that no PIOs are penalized in this state as the imposed penalties are not recovered from the salary of erring PIOs. Where is rule of law in this state if the act passed in the temple of this democracy is not pursued by concerned staff of government. Accountable functionaries of government are taking rest and enjoyment in air conditioned rooms and public is spending nights without meal. Since more than two years ,8 posts of information commissioners are vacant and only two information commissioners are performing the job of 10 information commissioners but our state government didn't make serious efforts to fill up the vacant post of information commissioners. Even the intelligentsia class is on the verge of hunger in this country because of corruption in the system.

  2. This is the worst condition. We have to reject such measure which is unfriendly. Whether under such condition transparency and accountability in the system can be promoted.

  3. It seems that convenience charge i.e. bribe for smooth move of file quite common in this system ,was not paid so director had created hindrances . Here is no rule of law and no corrupt public functionary is put behind the bar if he is influential. Dr. Vasudev Dev Yadav who is director of secondary education also the director of basic education. This man has amassed huge wealth and a case has been filed in the high court for C.B.I. inquiry for disproportionate assets but what is being done by High court every one knows. Whether it is justified that one man be directors of two important departments. Whether such directors can make available sought information.

  4. Whether it is rule of law that your friend is seeking information since more than five years in regard to penal action taken by UPSIC against erring PIOs of Mirzapur district . Some times it is told that five penalties have been imposed on four PIOs in two financial years as sought but latter it is told that only three penalties have been imposed on only two PIOs .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: