The Punjab State Information Commission has sought a reply in a case from an ‘unresponsive’ AIG-cum-PIO, failing which action would be initiated against him under the Right to Information Act. The complainant, Rajbir Kaur, had submitted that there was large-scale bungling in Basic Proficiency Test, 2013 for District Police Cadre, which was conducted by a committee constituted by Punjab DGP on an order dated March 7, 2013. She had sought some information from the PIO concerned because she wanted to expose “corruption” in the case. The case was heard by a double bench of information commissioners Surinder Awasthi and Chander Parkash. On a previous hearing on December 24, 2014, a copy of the RTI request was sent to PIO of office of Director General of Police Department, Punjab (HQ), Chandigarh, with directions to deal with the RTI request. A reply was submitted by Superintendent Hari Singh and H C Purshotam Singh, who appeared on behalf of Harsh Kumar Bansal, AIG-cum-PIO, Punjab, that the information has been supplied to the complainant through registered post. It was informed that information pertaining to constables Ravinder Kaur and Balbir Singh was not given to the complainant as it was not disclosable as per a judgment given by a division bench comprising Justice Radha Krishnan and Justice Dipak Misra of the Supreme Court in a special leave petition. As per orders by the bench, when Hari Singh and Purshotam Kumar were asked whether the respondent-PIO had examined that judgment and whether that judgment was applicable to this case, they could not come up with a satisfactory answer. The PIO of office of PAP Jalandhar informed that the required information has been sent to the PIO of office of DGP Punjab. The bench questioned why the complete information not submitted to the complainant. The commission observed that the conduct of the respondent-PIO seemed to be non-responsive as he had failed to elaborate how Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and the SC judgment were applicable to this particular case. The PIO was directed to give a specific reply, failing which action would be initiated against him. The next hearing is on March 11.
