Latest news with #RighttoServiceCommission
Hindustan Times
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
RTS panel can now take suo motu cognizance of delay in service
With the Haryana government amending Haryana Right to Service Act, 2014, the Right to Service Commission will now be able to take suo motu cognizance in case the designated officer or grievance redressal authority does not decide on the application or appeal within the stipulated time period. According to a notification chief secretary Anurag Rastogi has issued, a new provision has been added replacing Rule 9 of the Haryana Right to Service Rules, 2014. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) A government spokesperson said that if undue delay is found in the disposal of the application or appeal, the Commission will be able to pass appropriate orders. According to a notification chief secretary Anurag Rastogi has issued, a new provision has been added replacing Rule 9 of the Haryana Right to Service Rules, 2014. These rules will be called 'Haryana Right to Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025'. 'If before the application for availing any notified service, the matter concerned is pending before any court or the revisional authority of the concerned department, then the Commission shall not exercise its powers under section 17 of the Act against the designated officer or the first or second grievance redressal authority until a final decision is given by the court or the revisional authority,' the spokesperson said.
Hindustan Times
17-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: RTS panel fines SHO ₹10k for not providing DDR copy within 1-hour deadline
The chief commissioner of the Chandigarh Right to Service Commission, Mahavir Singh, has imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the station house officer (SHO) of the Sector 49 police station for failing to provide a required document under the Right to Service Act. On April 1, 2025, petitioner Navjot Lehal had submitted a written request to Om Parkash, the SHO-cum-investigating officer, seeking a copy of the daily diary report (DDR) dated November 6, 2024. The DDR recorded the addition of Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to an existing FIR registered in 2018 under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC. Initially filed by her father, Gurmukh Singh Lehal, the case now lists Navjot as the complainant. As per a notification issued on March 8, 2022, under the Right to Service Act, such documents must be provided by the SHO within one hour. However, no action was taken by the officer, which the commission deemed a violation of the Act. Navjot then filed a first appeal before the SDPO (South)-cum-first appellate authority on April 2. The appeal was dismissed the same day, citing that sharing the DDR could influence the investigating officer and potentially interfere with the ongoing investigation. It was stated that relevant documents would be provided once the supplementary challan was submitted in due course. Subsequently, on April 7, Navjot filed a second appeal before the senior superintendent of police (SSP)-cum-second appellate authority, which was also rejected on April 11. Aggrieved by denials, the petitioner filed a revision petition with the Chandigarh Right to Service Commission on April 15. The commission then sought detailed comments from the SSP and called both parties—Navjot and Om Parkash—to appear on May 14. During the hearing, Om Parkash repeated the same justifications previously given by the first and second appellate authorities. However, the petitioner submitted a copy of general diary details dated March 28, 2025, from the same police station, showing that a copy of FIR No 39 dated June 29, 2024, had been supplied to another complainant—undermining the SHO's defence. In its ruling, the commission stated, 'The designated officer ignored the petitioner's request. No service was provided, nor was any formal order issued denying the request. The first appellate authority failed to apply judicial mind and simply upheld a flawed legal interpretation. The order is devoid of merit.' After evaluating the case, the chief commissioner concluded that the SHO had wilfully neglected his duty, deliberately obstructed access to service, and violated the provisions of the Right to Service Act. Consequently, Om Parkash was found guilty of dereliction of duty, and a penalty of ₹10,000 was imposed on him. The commission also issued a directive to the senior superintendent of police to ensure the installation of display boards at police stations highlighting all notified public services under the act. These boards must also list the official e-mail IDs of the designated officers and the first and second appellate authorities. This information must also be uploaded on the police department's official website.
