16-05-2025
Chandigarh RTS commission fines police officer for delay in service delivery
Chandigarh: The Chandigarh Right to Service Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 on the SHO of Sector 49 police station for a delay in the delivery of services under the Right to Service Commission.
The decision came on the petition of Navjot Lehal. Lehal, through her email dated April 1, 2025, requested the SHO to supply her with a copy of the DDR dated Nov 6, 2024.
As per the RTS rules and notified services under the RTS Act, the document sought by the petitioner was to be provided by the SHO within one hour from the submission of the application by her. However, the SHO did not take any action on her request, thus failing to provide the service.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the SDPO (south) on April 2. The SDPO disposed of the appeal, stating that as per Section 5 (2) of the
Right to Service Act
, a copy of the sought DDR cannot be provided as the complainant may pressurise the investigating officer and hamper the investigation. As the case is still under investigation, the relevant documents will be provided to the complainant/applicant when the supplementary challan is submitted in due course.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Find packaging machines built for small businesses
automated packaging systems
Learn More
Undo
Accordingly, the petitioner, on April 7, went for a second appeal before the SSP, UT. The SSP on April 11 dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter, she approached the commission on April 17.
The commission observed, "The designated officer did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. Neither the service was provided nor any order rejecting the request of the petitioner was passed by him. Also, the first appellate authority did not apply his mind and blindly accepted this flawed interpretation of law by the designated officer… Similarly, the view of intermingling of the Right to Service Act and the Right to Information Act, taken by the second appellate authority, is also not tenable.
"
The commissioner held SHO Om Parkash guilty of not complying with the provisions of the Right to Service Act as he intentionally did not act on the request of the petitioner and thus failed to provide the service to her within the stipulated time limit.
"To meet the requirements of justice, impose a penalty of Rs 10,000 on him. He is also directed to supply a copy of DDR No 057 dated Nov 6, 2024, immediately to the petitioner," the commission directed.
