In a democratic system, the Right to Information Act 2005 is effective with the aim of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of government and administration. This act is proving to be a millstone to make the citizens aware about the activities of the government. Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner Mr. AK Agarwal has recommended disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer imposing a fine of Rs. Sahu applied to the Public Information Officer and Assistant Forest Conservator (CAMPA), Chief Executive Officer CAMPA Mahasamund on 27 March 2021, demanding a certified copy of CAMPA Form 14 available in the office from September 2020 to February 2021. On non-receipt of information, a complaint was submitted to the Commission on 3 June 2021. State Information Commissioner Mr. AK Agrawal, in the hearing of the case, found that the response of the Public Information Officer on the complaint application of the applicant was not found to be satisfactory and satisfactory, the then Public Information Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forests (CAMPA), Chief Executive Officer CAMPA Mahasamund Mr. Imposing a fine of Rs 25,000 on DKS Maurya under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhawan, Nava Raipur has been directed to recover the amount of fine from the concerned and send the information to the Commission. Similarly, Mr. Nitin Singhvi, Raipur, in an application to Public Information Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund on January 15, 2020, after applying radio collars to elephants, the documents related to the movement area of elephants, which wildlife SOS has deposited in Mahasamund Forest Division, those documents Asked to supply certified copies of the same under Right to Information. On being dissatisfied with the decision of the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Officer, a second appeal was presented before the Commission on 18 August 2020. State Information Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal found during the hearing that the then Public Information Officer Mr. Mayank Pandey, Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, Mahasamund, the current posting, Divisional Forest Officer, Balod, did not resolve the legal issue and did not send any reply to the Commission in support of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Imposing a fine of Rs 25,000 under Section 20(1), the Secretary Forest and Climate Change Department has been advised to take disciplinary action. Applicant Shri Virendra Pandey, New Shanti Nagar Raipur, Public Information Officer, Section Rights, General Administration Department received the application Public Information Officer Ministry of Public Works Department transferred to Mahanadi Bhawan under Section 6(3)(III) of the Right to Information Act 2005. In the application, the complaint of the asphalt scam in PWD was presented in the year 2013, which was decided to be investigated by the Economic Offenses Investigation Bureau. In the absence of investigation, we have written 10 reminders for action by getting the investigation done from time to time. Demanded a copy of the notesheet used from the date of complaint till the date of application and the action taken on the reminder letters and copy of all correspondence. Public Information Officer Mr. C. Tirkey, in his reply before the State Information Commissioner, said that it is not possible to provide information due to the matter being pending in the Hon’ble High Court, in his reply, the State Information Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal, Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act L) Referring to the then Public Information Officer C. Tirkey, Public Works Department, present posting Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Ministry of Housing and Environment, Nava Raipur, under section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 imposed a fine of Rs. 25 thousand. Mr. Dashrath Kumar Verma Raipur, in his two applications, demanded a copy of the MB book and a certified copy of the payment voucher related to Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division-3 Raipur contract number 238 and 244. The information sought by the applicant was declared unclear by the Public Information Officer, due to which the applicant presented the first appeal. The First Appellate Authority decided to provide the information sought by the applicant within 15 days. In the second appeal, the State Information Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal found in the hearing of the case that the Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division, did not take any legal action on the applicant’s application and did not give satisfactory and satisfactory answers to the information letters of the Commission. 3 Raipur Mr. Shriram Thakur, under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, imposed a fine of Rs. 25-25 thousand and directed the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Durg, District Durg, to recover the amount of imposed fine and transfer it to the government fund. Inform the commission by depositing it in.Like this:Like Loading…Continue Reading