Right to Information Act - Blame Game in Goa

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.


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.

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