Three penalties only imposed by UPSIC in two financial years but not a single penalty was recovered.


At least penalty must also be recovered from B.D.O. but commissioner rural development overlooked.

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

6:13 PM (3 minutes ago)

to urgent-actionpmosbsupremecourthgovupcmupcsupsecypgddpg2-arpgsec.sic
Hon’ble Sir-Whether any action will be taken to direct concerned to recover penalty from B.D.O. Bhola Nath Kannaujia as requested by your applicant under point 2-2- 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. Hon’ble Sir This is reminder e-mail. I have sent you so many reminders then D.M. Mirzapur told me that in two financial years only two PIOs are punished but their penalties have to recovered from their salary. The progress is before you Hon’ble Sir. At least letters should be sent if penalty couldn’t be recovered so that they may not make travesty of justice/provisions of Transparency act. Your applicant expects that at least his representation may be endorsed to concern with stern advice note. For this your applicant shall ever pray you Hon’ble Sir. 
Director of basic education Uttar Pradesh Lucknow directed PIO /District B.S.A. Mirzapur to made available information.
The content of the letter is as follows.
Sender-Director, Basic education ,Uttar Pradesh , Lucknow
To
              Public Information Officer /District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (B.S.A.) ,Mirzapur
Letter No. Educationa Directorate /Basic /R.T.I./2013/14  Dated-4.2.2014
Subject-In regard to made available information under Right to Information Act 2005 .
Gentle man,
                        Aforesaid subject is addressed to Director ,Basic Education ,Uttar Pradesh ,Lucknow as well as endorsed to others of letter of public information officer /additional district magistrate  F/R collectorate Mirzapur dated 13.1.2014 , take the perusal of this letter . This letter has been received from personal secretary /public information officer ,Chief secretary ,Government of Uttar Pradesh in order to dispose it.
In respect of this letter ,I was directed that please take necessary steps in the concerned matter and made available the sought information to complainant within time under Right to Information Act 2005 and ensure to apprise the concerned.
Annexure as aforesaid              With regard
                                 Mahendra Pratap Singh
Assistant public information officer
 For director ,basic education ,Uttar Pradesh ,Lucknow
   Endorsed to. Letter No. E.D. B./General education ,R.T.I./27612-16 /2013-14 same date
1-copy to PIO /Additional Director basic education. Uttar Pradesh ,Allahabad
2-copy to PIO/Divisional assistant director basic education Varanasi .
3-copy to concerned assistant, camp office Right to Information ,Lucknow
4-copy to Yogi M. P. Singh Resident-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road , Mirzapur.
                                     Initial of APIO 3.2.14  
                              Mahendra Pratap Singh
Assistant public information officer
 For director ,basic education ,Uttar Pradesh ,Lucknow 
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.

4 comments on Three penalties only imposed by UPSIC in two financial years but not a single penalty was recovered.

  1. 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 .Here this question arises that why these imposed penalties by UPSIC on erring PIOs are still not recovered from their salaries since five years proceedings are being made.

  2. This act of government is showing that government functionaries are not interested in complying the provisions of Transparency Act . This act of state government functionaries is tantamount to treacherous with the constitution of India. They should have canine instincts to guard the assets of his master but to whom they vigil ,ponder those itself. Here predators are protectors and now it has been problem that how serious problem may be tackled.

  3. Think about the complainant on whose complaint PIO is punished and later penal action is revoked. Whether it is justified that in the absence of complainant , penalty may be repealed as being done in UPSIC . More serious offence is that even penalties are not recovered by the concerned public functionaries if not revoked by Information commissioners. R.T.I.Act 2005 has been thrown useless because of anarchy in the system.

  4. Hon'ble member-Right to Information Act 2005 has been passed by temple of this democracy in order to bring up transparency and accountability in the working of public authority. Section 20 is penal provision in this act and if this provision is failed to cultivate any result ,then whether violation of provisions of transparency act can be curbed. In such anarchy , whether aforesaid act will achieve its goal. Only penalty can correct the wrongdoer but this penal provision has been teeth-less consequently one day this act will be thrown into dustbin like so many others.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: