M.S.Yatnatti Editor Property Politics
by Admin User - Tuesday, 13 March 2018, 04:11 PM

By: M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru: The Right to Information Act, 2005 already provides for imposition of penalty and recommendation of disciplinary action by the Central Information Commission/State Information Commission, as the case may be, against the Public Information Officer who has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information under the RTI Act. The CIC/SICs have been imposing such penalties and also recommending disciplinary action against such Public Information Officers and directions issued to all the departments to fix responsibility and take action under the Government Employees Conduct Rules 1957. Giving Knowingly false information and forged information attracts IPC 464 Making a false document and IPC 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—-Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compound­able. Section 166 of IPC : Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person : Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Most importantly in cited case law by Karira, the Commission themselves have invoked Section 166 of IPC(but have not initiated any action), which further strengthens this line of argument .The relevant extract from the said Order of the CIC is reproduced below;10. On perusal of this correspondence the Commission is constrained to conclude that Dr. S.K. Sarkar, Joint Secretary (AT&T) has obstructed, and Ms Anuradha Chagti and the DoPT as a public authority have knowingly violated and disobeyed the orders passed by the Commission knowing that the directions given by this Commission under Section 19(8) read with Section 19(7) are binding under the law. By their conduct, they have therefore committed offences punishable under Sections 166, 187 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, if proved, the possibility of action under Section 166 of IPC cannot be ruled out.