Panaji: Goa State Information Commission (SIC) on Monday directed the managing director of Goa Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to conduct a thorough inquiry against staff and officers for failing to maintain records and fix responsibility. The direction came after information sought under RTI was denied as the file was reported missing.SIC imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 jointly on the assistant public information officer (APIO) and public information officer (PIO) of GIDC for denial of information under the Right to Information Act. It also directed the PIO to reconstruct the missing file and provide the documents to appellant Vithal Prabhu Desai.“The drawal and disbursal authority at the GIDC is hereby directed to proportionally recover penalty to the tune of Rs 25,000 jointly from both the officers on or before May 20 and submit compliance to that effect on May 26 at 11 am through any authorised representative,” state information commissioner Atmaram Barve said.Aggrieved by the lack of response from the PIO and APIO, the appellant filed a second appeal before the commission.The APIO and PIO, Sohan Uskaikar and Jeetendra Gawandalkar, contended that the documents sought were in the custody of the APIO and that the file may have been misplaced or lost. They also submitted a certificate from the police inspector of Panaji police station regarding a complaint filed on the missing GIDC documents.The appellant presented objections to the replies filed by the APIO and PIO from time to time.“The replies filed by the PIO as well as APIO clearly indicate a careless approach in discharging their duties as evident from the fact that the PIO points towards the APIO and the APIO first makes a statement that the documents have gone missing and in the same breath seeks to invoke Section 12(f) of the RTI Act citing that the documents are non-existent and hence cannot be provided under RTI Act,” Barve said.The state information commissioner said both officers ignored their obligations under Sections 4 and 7 of the RTI Act.“Merely filing a complaint reporting missing files does not absolve the respondents of their obligations to firstly maintain their records in the manner prescribed in Section 4 of the RTI Act,” Barve said. “The acts and abstinences on the part of the PIO as well as APIO have caused denial of information towards the information seeker, which is clearly against the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.”
