The State Information Commission (SIC) has imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on a Bathinda station house officer (SHO) for not furnishing required information to an applicant and skipping a personal appearance.
The order was issued by the state information commissioner, Anumit Singh Sodhi on May 26 and it was received by the Bathinda-based complainant Balwinder Singh on June 9.
Balwinder, a district sports officer (DSO) posted in Barnala and a permanent resident of Bathinda, was called telephonically by then SHO, Civil Lines, Bathinda, on July 6, 2020, to appear at the police station in view of a complaint.
The petitioner stated that he was verbally told that the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) had filed a complaint against him.
Balwinder owns a piece of land at Dhobhiana Basti and in his petition he alleged that the then SHO directed him to produce ownership documents.
When Balwinder demanded a copy of the complaint against him, the police officer turned it down.
Later, Balwinder filed an RTI petition with the Civil Lines police station on July 16, 2020, and demanded details of the complaint against him by PUDA and a copy of the rules on which basis the police official inquired about land ownership without any complaint by the competent authority.
{{/usCountry}}Later, Balwinder filed an RTI petition with the Civil Lines police station on July 16, 2020, and demanded details of the complaint against him by PUDA and a copy of the rules on which basis the police official inquired about land ownership without any complaint by the competent authority.
{{/usCountry}}Citing that he had an auto-recorded phone conversation with the SHO, the petitioner also demanded the basis on which the cop wanted to see land ownership papers.
Balwinder’s lawyer Varun Bansal said PUDA filed a complaint on July 17, 2020, a day after the RTI petition was filed by the aggrieved party.
Since the SHO is the ex officio public information officer (PIO) of the said police station, Balwinder did not get the replies sought under the RTI petition.
Later, Balwinder filed an appeal in the SIC on December 16, 2020, but the police PIO did not furnish him with the desired replies.
Hearing the matter last month, the SIC took “a serious view of the casual approach of the PIO as neither the respondent nor any of his representatives were present. He has also not sent any intimation regarding his non-availability.”
“After looking at the conduct of the concerned respondent PIO and holding him guilty of a violation under Section 20 (1) as per provisions of the RTI Act and for making delay in supplying the requisite information to the information-seeker, a penalty of ₹10,000 is imposed,” concluded the SIC while giving a final opportunity to the PIO to supply the point-wise information as the case will be heard again on July 14.
The SIC also directed the Bathinda IGP to look into this matter and make sure that the commission’s orders are complied with by the PIO concerned well in time and he appears on the next date of hearing.