Chandigarh: Coming down heavily on the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board (PSSSB) over a missing record sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Punjab State Information Commission has recommended disciplinary action against the officials concerned, observing that the respondents knowingly furnished incorrect, incomplete and misleading information.The Commission also recommended disciplinary proceedings against officials of the department of industries and commerce for failing to respond to its queries.The directions were issued by chief information commissioner, Inderpal Singh, while disposing of an appeal filed by a Kharar resident who sought information from the PSSSB regarding a letter issued by the department of industries and commerce, Punjab.The Commission noted that despite granting the public information officer (PIO) several opportunities over multiple hearings, the requested information was not furnished.It was observed that while the respondent claimed the information sought regarding the June 26, 2019, letter was in the form of a question and, therefore, could not be supplied, the appellant merely sought the date on which the letter was received by the PSSSB. For the remaining queries, the respondent stated that the information was not available.From the respondent’s reply, the Commission found that the original letter dated June 26, 2019, was not available. It further observed that the complete noting placed on record reflected online processing of the RTI application from June 19, 2025. Since the RTI application was filed on Feb 3, 2024, and Note No. 1 commenced on June 19, 2025, the Commission observed that the matter appeared to have been dealt with in offline mode before that date.The Commission further observed that the non-availability of the record was within the knowledge of the senior assistant, superintendent and assistant director, as well as the establishment, confidential-1 and confidential-2 branches. While the accounts branch and confidential-1 branch specifically reported that the information was unavailable, no response was submitted by the confidential-2 branch.During the proceedings, the respondents repeatedly maintained that the record relating to the letter dated June 26, 2019, received by the PSSSB from the director, industries and commerce, Punjab, was unavailable. However, the appellant produced a copy of an affidavit filed by the then secretary, PSSSB, stating that the letter dated June 26, 2019, was received from the director, industries and commerce, Punjab.The Commission also examined the explanation submitted by the assistant director for being unable to attend the hearing. It was observed that the high court order cited in the communication pertained to CWP No. 2535 of 2025, Gagandeep Singh and Another vs The Appellate Authority, The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corp Ltd, which was already disposed of on Feb 3, 2025. However, the assistant director stated that the record was required to be produced before the Punjab and Haryana high court on Oct 9, 2025.The Commission further observed that while the writ petition related to Gagandeep Singh, the communication referred to Randeep Kaur.The appellant also submitted that the letter dated June 26, 2019, was received by the PSSSB vide diary No. 1073 dated June 28, 2019, a claim denied by the respondents. To verify the claim, the Commission directed the PIO on Nov 26, 2025, to produce a certified copy of diary No. 1073 dated June 28, 2019. However, no such record was produced.Observing that the respondents misled the Commission in a case involving unavailable or misplaced information, the Commission noted that no action, including lodging an FIR, a DDR or fixing responsibility for the missing record, was initiated. It was further observed that the matter was brought to the notice of the chairman and secretary of the PSSSB through orders issued during the proceedings.It noted that the director, industries and commerce, Punjab, was directed to furnish documentary evidence regarding the dispatch of the office copy of the letter to the PSSSB and provide the names of the officials handling the correspondence. However, no written submissions were filed despite officials from the department remaining present during the hearing.The Commission observed that their appearance without the written submissions sought amounted to a burden on the state exchequer. Consequently, it recommended disciplinary action against the officials dealing with the matter, as well as those who failed to respond to the Commission’s queries.About the missing record, the Commission observed that the PSSSB did not place on record any action taken by its officials, such as lodging an FIR or DDR, over the misplacement of the record.It held that a missing record was not an exemption under the RTI Act and noted that despite being given reasonable opportunities to trace it, the respondents failed to discharge their statutory duties under the RTI Act, 2005.Observing that the respondents knowingly furnished incorrect, incomplete and misleading information, that the record was unavailable, and that no action was initiated to fix responsibility, the Commission recommended disciplinary action by the chief secretary against assistant directors, superintendents and senior assistants who remained posted from the date of the RTI application until the order was reserved.The Commission further clarified that if any such official was on deputation from another department, disciplinary proceedings should be initiated by the parent department.The Commission also gave liberty to the chief secretary to consider shifting staff from the PSSSB, if deemed appropriate, and brought to the chief secretary’s notice that online (e-office) and offline files were being dealt with simultaneously.MSID:: 132112819 413 |
