PANJIM: When faced with an adversity, blame the juniors! The superiors in Goa police had so far triumphed over the problems by either passing the buck on their inefficient juniors or the system.
Again the same trick was adopted when the South Goa police failed to provide information under Right to Information Act to one Samiro Pereira for more than five months. South Goa SP Shekhar Prabhudesai who is also the Public Information Officer (PIO) blamed his juniors, SDPO Margao Tony Fernandes and SDPO Vasco Dinraj Govekar for the delay. In turn, Fernandes
contended that Colva PI, his own subordinate had delayed the submission of information, while Govekar contended that there was no delay from his side.
Again the same trick was adopted when the South Goa police failed to provide information under Right to Information Act to one Samiro Pereira for more than five months. South Goa SP Shekhar Prabhudesai who is also the Public Information Officer (PIO) blamed his juniors, SDPO Margao Tony Fernandes and SDPO Vasco Dinraj Govekar for the delay. In turn, Fernandes
contended that Colva PI, his own subordinate had delayed the submission of information, while Govekar contended that there was no delay from his side.
However, State Chief Information Commissioner A Venkataratnam and State Information Commissioner G G Kambli were not impressed by the blame game and made it clear that they can't accept the pleas of the of the police officials that their subordinates and not they themselves are directly responsible for the delay in furnishing the information as the Police department is a uniformed department based on hierarchy.
Criticizing the manner in which they pleaded helplessness in the matter, the Information Commissioners said, "If we accept this situation as beyond the control of the PIO, we will be setting a wrong precedent in the matter of implementation of the RTI Act" and imposed a penalty of Rs 5000 each on the PIO and Fernandes, while Govekar was exempted.
"We hold both the SP South (also PIO) and SDPO Fernandes responsible together and jointly for the delay caused in providing the information," they stated in their order.
The Information Commissioners observed that the PIO has to make efforts to get the information from his colleagues/subordinates in the department however big the department is. "It is the personal responsibility of the PIO to get information requested for by the
citizen and to supply to him. Nowhere have been found such inordinate delay as in a present case and such casual approach of entering into correspondence as in the present case of the Police department," they added.
Pereira had submitted a request on August 17, 2006 and as he didn't get any information, he finally approached the Commission in second appeal to get the information also take penal action against the SP.
citizen and to supply to him. Nowhere have been found such inordinate delay as in a present case and such casual approach of entering into correspondence as in the present case of the Police department," they added.
Pereira had submitted a request on August 17, 2006 and as he didn't get any information, he finally approached the Commission in second appeal to get the information also take penal action against the SP.
Interestingly, once notice was issued to the SP (South) and SDPOs, the appellant Pereira submitted that he is not interested in pursuing the matter. However, it was not entertained as he had moved the appeal after the Commission after the order. "In all probability there might be some pressure on him to say so. There is no way of finding out one way or the other," the Information Commissioners added.
(Article appeared in Gomantak Times, Panaji. 22 June 2007)
BY PREETU NAIR
preetu_nair@gomantaktimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment