File No CIC/SA/A/2014/000110 Documents that have been around for 100 years need to be preserved.

7. The PIO did not explain the policy or guidelines or mechanism that his office follows in such situation. The District Magistrate, who was first appellate authority, supposed to be senior officer, did not bother much about this basic problem and ordered to provide information as per available records within 15 days. This shows most unresponsive and uncaring attitude of a senior officer about a serious issue of record keeping which is essential function of the authority. Commission observes it is a pathetic bureaucratic order which helps in harassing the people without serving the purpose of their office but serving the officers to escape liability of informing. The Commission, therefore, condemns this kind of negligence on the part of the Public Authority and First Appellate Authority in missing out certain documents which are supposed to be part of the record for hundreds of years.
8. The Commission directs the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for negligent response to the RTI application of appellant on an essential function of his authority and for not taking any effort to initiate alternative reconstruction of lost original document or providing any remedy to the appellant, who paid fee of registration as charged by them with a hope that his document could be retrieved whenever needed, and also explain the dereliction of duty.
9. The Commission, therefore, recommends the Public Authority to take disciplinary action against PIO and any other officer who is responsible for keeping the original documents safe and secure, and also to explain the policy of providing a remedy in such circumstances within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.