Central Information Commission
Parminder Singh Patwal vs North Western Railway on 21 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133211
CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133663
CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/136488
Parminder Singh Patwal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Carriage Workshop, North
Western Railway, Jodhpur - 342001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.11.2024
Date of Decision : 20.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for disposal
through common order as these are based on identical issue raised by the
same Appellant against same Public Authority.
CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133211
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 22.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.08.2023
Information sought:
Page 1 of 20The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"a Please arrange to provide me attested copies of Minutes of Review Committee/s for reviewing my Suspension since 2002 along with copies of orders in compliance of such Review/s if any and Acknowledgement/s taken from me for the same.
b Please arrange to provide me attested copies of my representations since 2002 AD, the 'documents depicting action taken on my representations and also arrange inspection of the files in which these representations were dealt with.
c Kindly provide me an attested copy of my Service Record and 'P' file."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 22.03.2023 stating as under:
"1 आवेदक के 2002 म नलंबन के बाद र यू कमेट ने 31.03.2016 को नलंबन का र यू करके नलंबन समा त करने क सफा रश क थी, िजसक अपील य अ#धकार %वारा &वीकृ त के प(चात नलंबन के * तसंहरण के लए एस.एफ. 4 कमांक E- 324/JUWS/PS/10752/121 .द. 31.03.2016 को ह जार /कया गया, िजसपर इसी .दन आपक *ाि त &वीकृ त लेकर एक * त आपको सप ु द ु 3 कर द गयी थी। कमेट के मन5स तथा एस.एफ.4 क स6या7पत * त संल8न है ।
2 आवेदक ने अपील य अ#धकार (मु.का.*. / जोधपरु ) को संबो#धत एक अपील .दनांक 15.09.2021 उ#चत मा;यम से *&तत ु क थी. िजसक * त संल8न है । इस पर अपील य अ#धकार महोदय %वारा लया गया नण3य प< सं ई-324/जो.का.शा./ पीएस 10752 .दनांक 10.01.2002 के मा;यम से आवेदक को अवगत कराया गया था, िजसक * त आवेदक ने 25.01.2022 को *ा त क । आवेदक क ह&ता> रत *ाि त &वीकृ त इस प< पर अं/कत है । /फर भी इसक एक * त स6या7पत कर संल8न है ।
3 इस काया3लय के प< सं@या 433ई/पी-2/आर.ट .आई./75/2023/03 .दनांक 10.03.2023 के %वारा इस प< के साथ संल8न कर स7व3स रकॉड3 क स6या7पत * त Annexure-1 Cम सं@या 1 से 9 पर, स7व3स रकॉड3 के साथ संल8न प<D क स6या7पत * त Annexure-2 Cम सं@या 1 से 73 पर व यिEतगत फाईल क स6या7पत * त Annexure-3 Cम सं@या 1 से 94 पर उपलFध करवायी जा चुक है ।"Page 2 of 20
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.05.2023, held as under:
"No reply required.
मद सं. 2 के सIबंध म मांगी गई सच ू ना के सIबंध म काया3लय म उपलFध द&तावेजो क * त सलं8न हJ । (ANNEXURE-I, Page 1 से 40) No reply required."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133663 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.03.2023 CPIO replied on : 07.04.2023 First appeal filed on : 10.04.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 13.06.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.08.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 04.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"a Please arrange to provide me attested copies of Minutes of Review Committee/s for reviewing my Suspension since 2002 along with copies of orders in compliance of such Review/s if any and Acknowledgement/s taken from me for the same.
b Please arrange to provide me attested copies of my representations since 2002 AD, the 'documents depicting action taken on my representations and also arrange inspection of the files in which these representations were dealt with.
c Kindly provide me an attested copy of my Service Record and 'P' file."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 07.04.2023 stating as under:
Page 3 of 20"1 आवेदक के 2002 म नलंबन के बाद र यू कमेट ने 31.03.2016 को नलंबन का र यू करके नलंबन समा त करने क सफा रश क थी. िजसक अपील य अ#धकार %वारा &वीकृ त के प(चात नलंबन के * तसंहरण के लए एस.एफ. 4 कमांक E- 324/JUWS/PS/10752/121 .द. 31.03.2016 को ह जार /कया गया, िजसपर इसी .दन आपक *ाि त &वीकृ त लेकर एक * त आपको सप ु द ु 3 कर द गयी थी। कमेट के मन5स तथा एस.एफ.4 क स6या7पत * त संल8न है ।
2 आवेदक ने अपील य अ#धकार (मु.का.*. / जोधपरु ) को संबो#धत एक अपील .दनांक 15.09.2021 उ#चत मा;यम से *&तत ु क थी. िजसक * त संल8न है । इस पर अपील य अ#धकार महोदय %वारा लया गया नण3य प< सं ई-324/जो.का.शा./ पीएस 10752 .दनांक 10.01.2002 के मा;यम से आवेदक को अवगत कराया गया था, िजसक * त आवेदक ने 25.01.2022 को *ा त क । आवेदक क ह&ता> रत *ाि त &वीकृ त इस प< पर अं/कत है । /फर भी इसक एक * त स6या7पत कर संल8न है ।
3 इस काया3लय के प< सं@या 433ई/पी-2/आर.ट .आई./75/2023/03 .दनांक 10.03.2023 के %वारा इस प< के साथ संल8न कर स7व3स रकॉड3 क स6या7पत * त Annexure-1 Cम सं@या 1 से 9 पर, स7व3स रकॉड3 के साथ संल8न प<D क स6या7पत * त Annexure-2 Cम सं@या 1 से 73 पर व यिEतगत फाईल क स6या7पत * त Annexure-3 Cम सं@या 1 से 94 पर उपलFध करवायी जा चुक है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.06.2023, held as under:
"No reply required.
मद सं. 2 के सIबंध म मांगी गई सच ू ना के सIबंध म काया3लय म उपलFध द&तावेजो क * त सलं8न हJ । (ANNEXURE-I, Page 1 से 40) No reply required."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/136488 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 4 of 20RTI application filed on : 15.02.2023 CPIO replied on : 14.03.2023 First appeal filed on : 10.04.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 16.05.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.08.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 15.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"a I had submitted an Appeal through proper channel from shop floor on 15.09.2021 under Rule 18(IV) (b) read with Rules 10, 9(6) to 9(9) and 9(18) of D&A Rules 1968.
(i) Please provided me attested copies of record depicting action taken upon my appeal by any authority.
(ii) If no action has been taken on my appeal, learned appellate authority is requested to apprise me reasons for not considering and deciding my appeal under section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005.
(iii) If my appeal has not been forwarded to the learned Appellate Authority, so deciding authority is requested to provide me reasons (for not forwarding my appeal) under section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005.
(iv) Please arrange to provide all related record in this regard for my inspection (with my helper) at previously decided date and time as convenient to both administration and this applicant.
b Please arrange to provide me attested copy of my Service Record and 'P' file."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 14.03.2023 stating as under:
"A (i) आपक अपील .दनांक 15.09.2021 पर अपील य अ#धकार महोदय %वारा लया गया नण3य प< सं.ई-324/ जो.का.शा. / पीएस 10752 .दनांक 10.01.2002 के मा;यम से आपको अवगत कराया गया था, िजसक * त आपने 25.01.2022 को *ा त क । आपक ह&ता> रत *ाि त &वीकृ त इस प< पर अं/कत है । /फर भी इसक एक * त स6या7पत कर संल8न है ।Page 5 of 20
(ii) क गई काय3वाह क सच ू ना मद 1 म आपको द गयी है , अतः यह मद काMप नक है ।
(iii) आपक अपील अपील य अ#धकार को अN7षत करनेपर ह उPहोनेकाय3वाह क है , िजसक सूचना मद 1 म आपको द गयी है , अतः यह मद भी काMप नक है ।
(iv) 15 .दनD भीतर जन सच ू ना *कोQठ म उपि&थत होकर कभी भी संबं#धत रकाड3 का न र>ण कर सकत है ।
B(i) स7व3स रकाड3 क स6या7पत * त Annexure 1 कम सं@या 01 से09 पर, स7व3स रकाड3 केसाथ संल8न प<D क स6या7पत * त Annexure 2 कम सं@या 01 से73 पर व यिEतगत फाईल Annexure 3 कम सं@या 01 से94 पर संल8न है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 16.05.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by his son, Mr. Kshitiz Singh present through video- conference.
Respondent: Represented by Mr. Basant Singh, Dy. CPO and Mr. M. K. Meena, Dy. CEE present through video-conference.
A consolidated written submission dated 06.11.2024 has been filed by the appellant, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
"..Sir.
This humble appellant has gone through open heart surgery on date 14.10.2024 and not in position to contest personally. Related record is enclosed herewith as Annexure-H-1 for ready reference please. Hence, I am submitting this written submission for hearing for kind consideration please.
1-In 1 case having File No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133211 listed for hearing on 07-11-2024 at 12:15 PM: -
Page 6 of 20a. In Para 3 of my 2nd appeal I have established that "all the authorities given any duty in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 are accountable to follow these rules in toto and within their limitations." Because b. The RTI Act 2005 begins with the words "An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
c. Ground 'b' for 2nd appeal shows that my transfer was cancelled pending my petition in Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan against my transfer. The current Dy. CEE and Disciplinary Authority have cancelled orders of De-novo inquiry stayed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur bench and during the pendency of the case. Respondents have nothing to contest both these facts. d. But the learned Appellate Authority both in D&AR and RTI matter (FAA), then CWM, Jodhpur Mr Indrajeet Dihana did not dispose of my 1 appeal on the false pretext of pendency of my petition before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur bench. This act and omission, by learned then CWM is lack of observation of accountability by an officer. I have suffered by his decision & hence I have right to know true reasons behind this decision. Disposal of my two matters (Transfer and De-novo Inquiry Matters) by the lower authority than Mr. Dihana sir pronounce loudly that the pretext of Mr Dihana sir as false and lack of observation of accountability by him making me suffer & loss of lakhs of rupees too.
e. Now it is up to Hon'ble Commission to establish the reign of statute (RTI Act here) and consider the questions of law submitted in item 'F' of my 2nd Appeal.
2. In 2nd case having File No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133663 listed for hearing on 07-11-2024 at 12:20 PM: -
a. This case too is more the case of Accountability than that of transparency. Because all of my representations have never been decided within the period of 30 days prescribed in charter and most of them have been decided after a decade. I have never got even interim reply. This fact can be established by the record on case file and can be ascertained by asking learned respondents too.
b. Against item 1 of my application, the learned respondents provided me copy of so- called review conducted in year 2016 of my suspension. The learned respondents cannot contest this fact that review of my suspension was to be Page 7 of 20 done on 27.10.2006 as per RBE 159 of 2006 read with RBE 94 and 95 of 2006. This delay of a decade also show the lack of observance of accountability by the respondents.
c. I have given the incumbency of officers and requested for detailed inquiry to establish responsibility for lack of observance of accountability by these Public Authorities, which has affected me and my family very badly- financially, mentally, socially, physically and departmentally. Hence I have right to know the reasons behind the decision of delaying my case manyfold the prescribed period, BUT the same was not taken on record by the deciding authority defying Section 4 of the RTI Act. The RTI Act guarantees observance of accountability by the Public Authorities in addition to transparency.
d. Now it is up to Hon'ble Commission to establish the reign of statute (RTI Act here).
3. In 3rd case having File No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/136488 listed for hearing on 07-11-2024 at 12:25 PM: -
a. In item 'a' and 'b' of my application dated 04.02.2023, I have mentioned delay of about 6 & 8 years respectively in initiating next step in D&AR proceedings. I am affected badly due to this delay. Hence, I have right to know the reasons (human and procedural) for this delay as per Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. But I, have yet to get the information of deciding officer, copy of decision or reasons for decision. Here arise the questions of law I submitted in Item 'F' of 2nd appeal, to be decided by Hon'ble Commission.
b. Item 'c' of my application pertains to decision of CWM (appellate authority in D&A Rules) that inquiry in my case was completed, and final action was to be taken on revocation of my suspension. As per instructions in vogue any successor incumbent had to proceed further considering the Inquiry completed and exonerate me. Because only exoneration was the step which was not possible without revocation of my suspension. But one of the successors ordered for de-novo inquiry against the rules. In this regard I had requested the information depicting *decision of predecessor DAs' & 'final action'. The respondents have informed that no information is available the case file. But I have affected by such implemented decisions and have suffered badly. Hence, I have right to know the reasons behind the decisions under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005.
c. With request to Hon'ble Information Commissioner to grant me permission to first discuss last item 'e' of my application seeking information under the RTI Page 8 of 20 Act 2005. The learned respondents have never denied the availability of information against this item. But they not provided me information on the baseless pretext of pendency of my petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. Now both the D&AR matter and the petition have been disposed of. The respondents have provided me a CD having my complete D&AR case. But I could not find this information in that file. It is requested to Hon'ble Information Commissioner to direct the respondents to provide me the information complete in all respect and also to provide me complete copy of the file having information and take up sternly the learned respondent who lied that they have provided me copy of my complete D&AR case file, because they have not provided me in the CD the copy of supplementary case file and claimed to provide complete case file.
d. Now, about item 'd' of my application seeking information under the RTI Act 2005. The learned respondents have replied that they have disposed of the record of the subsistence allowance paid to me during my 14 years long suspension period. They have not given copy of Record Destruction / Disposal Register and proceedings including the permission of competent authority. Now my disciplinary case has been completed. How can I get arrears without the record of the actual amount drawn by me including deductions of that time, Destroying the record of payment of subsistence allowance to a person use Disciplinary case is going on, if done by any public authority is a blunder. NON OBSERVANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY. I cannot believe irresponsible officers of the Railways.
4. In all these 3 RTI matters, Accountability is the point to pondered upon by the commission. In the past, the Hon'ble commission has adopted serious view for non observance of the accountability by Public Authorities as in the decision dated 27.01.2023 of 2nd appeal number CIC/NWRLY/A/2022/123832-UM.
In case of any leniency against these respondents, they shall not stop their non- observance of the accountability, which is still continued as detailed below: -
a. Being relevant here, I am submitting his latest act/ omission defying the decision of the Competent Authority and the RTI Act 2005.
i. When the departmental disciplinary proceedings concluded and related petition of mine before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal too was disposed of, On 1 March referring both the concluding, I submitted 2 applications dated 01.03.2024. 1" application addressed to CWM requesting Page 9 of 20 grant of all the consequential benefits. 2nd application was the application seeking the following under the RTI Act 2005.
ii. The Electrical Department readily provided the information provided against item 'A' above, which depicts that despite being a Technician Grade 11, 1 am capable of perform the work performed by a Sr. Technician. It is pertinent to mention here that no training of work has been imparted to me after revocation of my suspension. Hence, I was capable of doing the work done by a Sr. Technician during suspension period too. Item B was declared withdrawn by me.
iii. Important Part 'B' of the requested information is reproduced here:
B. From Personnel Branch regarding implementation of 1. Order dated 12.12.2023 in OA 356 of 2016 by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in O.A. 160/2023 and 2. NIP issued by D.A. and Dy.CEE/JU-WS bearing No. ई-324/जे.यू.डFMयू.एस./पी एस. 10752 dated 29 फरवर 2024 with Annexures IN and 2N attached with it:
1. Attested copy of the Documents depicting and/or List of all the consequential benefits for which I am eligible in the light of both the orders detailed in item 'B' above with name and designations of the officer/s and official/s responsible to provide me the benefits.
2. Attested copy of the Documents (Charter/Circular/Rule/Order/Policy etc) depicting duration within which all the consequential benefits should be ensured keeping in view these orders and/or application/representation of mine."
(iv) But on 05.03.2024 Mr. Basant Singh, Dy. CPO, Jodhpur Workshop summoned me in his chamber and asked me to withdraw the above mentioned item 'B' on the pretext that he was already doing my work. When I refused, he threatened me of delay of years until disposal of 2nd appeal consequential in the case by the Hon'ble Commission. These 3 2nd appeals of 2023 of mine were pending for disposal before the Commission. Big amounts of borrowings especially on marriage of my daughter were haunting me. After order by Mr. Basant Singh, a huge arrear was waiting for me and my 5 digit salary was to be of 6 digits. I frightened by the warning of delay of years given by Mr. Basant Singh. Again Mr. Basant Singh reminded me our relations since young age in Railway colonies and assured me that he would settle my case within a month. In case of his failure, I could raise the demand of information in my 1st appeal. So I was enforced to agree by both his assurance as old friend and threat as an officer.
(v)Mr. Sanjay Singh, Office Superintendent of Personnel Branch wrote application of withdrawal of item 'B' and got my signature without explaining me the contents of the application, and Mr Sanjay Singh handed over the same Page 10 of 20 to the dealer madam. Reference number of the case shows that this application (Annexure-H-2) was written in office by the official knowing registration number of the RTI application. Hon'ble Commission can feel both my need of the information and helplessness that enforced me to withdraw the demand. This withdrawal helps only Mr. Basant Singh, Dy. CPO, whose man intention came after 6 months.
(vi) When, instead of a month, I got no relief for almost 4 months, I preferred 1 appeal on 29.06.2024. In the appeal I had shown the information as not provided as even after one month Mr. Basant Singh has not passed any order. But I am still waiting for the information and disposal of 1" appeal after lapse of prescribed 30 days and extended 45 days for disposal of 1ª appeal.
(vi) Further I wanted to know what process has been adopted in the case file. Hence I requested for copy of the case file in the RTI cell of the Jodhpur workshop vide my application of the very 29.06.2024. But I am still waiting for the information or even interim reply vet even after lapse of 30 days.
(vii) Reasons for delaying fixation orders is best known to Mr. Basant Singh.
(viii) To prove non-observance of Accountability by Mr. Basant Singh. Dy CPO, Jodhpur Workshop, 1 am submitting copy of the NIP dated 29.06.2024 issued by the learned Disciplinary Authority (Competent Authority to decide what amount should be paid to a Charged Official for suspension period) and Dy. CEE, Jodhpur Workshop as Annexure-1-3.
(ix) I very humbly request your good self to peruse less than one lincol item A. 2 at 1 page of Annexure- 2N to this NIP and less than 3 lined item 11on last page of the same Annexure just before Signature. Rest all matter of this Annexure shows that after detailed justification, the learned D.A. passed order for payment of full pay and allowance for suspension period. This Annexure has been prepared as per guidance in Rule 1345 of the IREC. Rules 1343 to Rule 1345 are F.R. 54 itself, which is an Absolute Rule
(x) Now am submitting copy of the Letter No: 795- ई/पी3/7वधत ु /ट .एल.पदोPन त/ई-आ/फस फाईल न. 70695/2024/ dated 09.09.2024 as (Annexure-H-4) issued by Mr. Basant Sing, Dy, CPO, Jodhpur Workshop, which is too against the order of Disciplinary Authority, to understand by any man of common prudence. By this order against the rules, I lost my heart for about a fortnight. Ultimately my son led me to hospital on 26.09.2024 and after diagnosis and open heart surgery, I am still lying on the bed.
In this order Mr Basant Singh has made Rule 228 of Chapter 2 of IREM, base for his order. This Rule 228 Runs: 228. Erroneous Promotions Sometimes due to administrative errors, staff are over-looked for promotion.t higher, grader could either be on account of wrong assignment of relative seniority of the Page 11 of 20 eligible staff or full facts not being placed before the competent authority at the time of ordering promotion or some other reasons"
Now question arises, who in right-Disciplinary Authority or Mr. Basant Singh?
(xi) To answer this question I am submitting copy of an information provided by the Railway Board to Mr. Kamal Kishore, Rio Moti Chowk, Jodhpur (as Annexure-H-5), which ascertains that Mr Basant Singh is wrong and learned D.A. is right.
(xii) Then question arises why Mr. Basant Singh issued the Order? In my opinion Mr. Basant Singh has given me a message that he has more powers than the learned D.A., Railway Board and he is immune of the law of the land even after his act and/or omission of against any rule or law. Again question arises-
Why he messaged me so. My answer will be "corruption". If not, Mr. Basant Singh should submit his reply on affidavit. In support of my opinion I beg to submit the following points
1. Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) and Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) both are specifically pertains to Personnel Branch of the Railway. Mr Basant Singh, being an officer of Personnel Branch, is well familiar with both these guide books. Only corruption is big goal driven by which he gone against the D.A. and Railway Board.
2. I had requested Mr. Basant Singh (Being in-disagree of Personnel Branch of Jodhpur Workshop) in my application dated 01.03.2024 to provide me guiding principals in my matter. He did not provide, & enforced me to withdraw my request. I submitted 1" appeal on 29.06.2024, he did nut provide yet. Because driven by his intention of corruption, he did not want to bind himself in the rules declared by himself. He also did not want to give false or misguiding information. The only way he had is keeping men, which he is following defying the RTI Act 2005.
3. I am sending 3 copies (For learned FAA & CWM, for leamed D.A. and Dy. CEE & for Mr. Basant Singh, Dy. CPO, Jodhpur Workshop) of this written submission without annexures (Because the respondents should have these rules/policies) to despatch section of Jodhpur Workshop. I hope especially Mr. Basant Singh shall submit his reply immediately before Hon'ble Commission.
5. NO, I AM NOT REQUESTING DISPOSAL OF MY DISPUTE OF ARREARS OR DISCIPLINARY MATTER VIDE THIS RTI PROCEEDING I once again very humbly request Hon'ble I.C. to peruse initial words (like preamble) of the RTI Act:
Page 12 of 20"An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and ACCOUNTABILITY in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;
1. AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning AND ALSO TO CONTAIN CORRUPTION and to hold Governments are their instrumentalities accountable to the governed The Hon'ble commission has been constituted for the objects depicted by the bold and underlined words above especially the words capitalized.
I do know that my RTI applications dated 01.03.2024 and 29.06.2024 & 1 appeal dated 29.06.2024 in my application dated 01.01.2024 are new one and before this written submission, Laever approached Hon'ble commission regarding them.
But I am suffering since 2002 (from earlier than the RTI Act) due to 'NON OBSERVANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES." By the (in my opinion corruption driven) order dated 09.09.2024 issued by Mr. Basant Singh against the opinion of the Railway Board this suffering is continue and will continue causing me enormous Financial Losses (to be recovered from Mr. Basant Singh).
These New applications and 1st appeal are proof against Shri Basant Singh. My day to day sufferings due to non-observance of Accountability by the Public Authorities like Mr. Basant Singh and erstwhile D.A.s invoke provisions of the RTI Act.
Hence I request Hon'ble commission to kindly consider this written submission including these new RTI Applications as a whole.
7. Vide this written submission I would request all the respondents especially CWM sir to not to oppose these new inclusions, because both my applications are un-responded by Mr. Basant Singh, Dy, CPO, without even interim reply by Mr. Basant Singh and RTI Cell respectively and my 1 appeal in application dated 01.03.2024 is too un-responded by anybody.
In such a situation, Hon'ble Commission can pass order. In case the respondents submit any proof of Mr. Basant Singh's good intention, I am ready for severe-Page 13 of 20
most punishment by Hon'ble commission, I once again request Hon'ble Commission to consider this written submission as a whole-considering the un- responded new applications as the most relevant proofs against the non- observance of Accountability especially by Mr. Basant Singh."
The Appellant's representative stated that his father (Appellant) underwent an open-heart surgery, and the doctor suggested him for complete bedrest, therefore, either the matter may be adjourned or the written submission of the appellant may be considered for disposal of instant appeals on merits.
Respondent stated that a point-wise reply against each RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. However, if the appellant is not satisfied with the same, he may come and visit their office to inspect the relevant records and he volunteered to facilitate due assistance to the appellant during inspection of records and also for redressal of his grievance.
Upon being queried by the Commission regarding the reason for such a prolonged period (14 years) of suspension of the Appellant, the Respondent failed to give any cogent explanation, however, he vaguely stated that since the Appellant got stay order from the Hon'ble CAT, Jodhpur. Therefore, his suspension/ disciplinary proceedings could not be completed within stipulated time. On further query whether DA&R cases are now decided, the respondent informed that the appellant has been awarded minor penalty of withholding of PTO/passes for 2 years on 24.1.2024.
Post hearing, a rejoinder dated 07.11.2024 to averred consolidated written submission has been filed by the respondent, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of clarity:
Subject: Reply of written submission given by applicant Shri Parminder Singh. Reference:
1) File No CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/133211 Listed for hearing on 07.11.2024 (2) File No CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/113363 Listed for hearing on 07.11.2024 (3) File No CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/136488 Listed for hearing on 07.11.2024 Respected Sir, Today at 12.15 Hrs along with nodal officer of Electrical Branch of Jodhpur Workshop attended hearing of all three cases mentioned under reference above. During the hearing oral direction issued to us to submit counter reply of written submission given by applicant. After go through written statement submitted by applicant on
06.11.2024 the para wise reply of Electric Branch of CWM Office are as under :-
Para Reply Page 14 of 20 1
(a)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(b)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(c)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(d)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(e) Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
Para Reply
2.
(a)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(b)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(c)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(d) Desired information has already been provided to applicant. Para Reply 3
(a)Desired information has already been provided to applicant
(b)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(c)Desired information has already been provided to applicant.
(d)Desired information has already been provided to applicant. Para Reply 4 (1) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office.
4(ii) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(iii) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(iv) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(v) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office.
4(vi) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(vii) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(viii) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(ix) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4(x) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office.
4(xi) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4-xii(2) Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office. 4-xii(3)Pertains to personnel branch of CWM Office.
Para Reply 5,6 & 7 During the hearing Hon'ble CIC allowed applicant to inspect document which he required and demanded to supply under provision of act within 6 months. The direction of Hon'ble CIC will be compliance in true sprit."
Page 15 of 20Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the replies given by the CPIO in all the instant cases. In response to which, the Respondent claimed that point-wise replies in all these appeals have already been provided to the Appellant vide their letters dated 07.04.2023, 22.03.2023 and 14.03.2023, which was never contested by him.
However, if the Appellant is not satisfied, Respondent volunteered to facilitate opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the appellant.
Considering the written submission and prayer of the Appellant in all three cases, the Commission directs the Respondent to collect and place all the records of information sought of these RTI applications at one place within two weeks from receipt of this order and inform the appellant thereafter, affording him or through his representative an opportunity of inspection of records to the Appellant pertaining to the RTI applications on a mutually decided date and time but not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided, free of cost. Appellant may be allowed to take assistance of any other person considering his medical condition.
First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
Notwithstanding the above, considering the gravity of issue flagged by the appellant regarding inordinate delay in review of his suspension order by the Respondent Public Authority, the Commission notes with grave concern the casualness of attitude adopted by the authorities in such a matter and is shocked by their approach in keeping a person under suspension for such a long period of time which has ultimately been decided with minor penalty of withholding of PTO passes for two years. Obviously, the alleged misconduct could not have been grave. That being so, suspension for 14 years appears unjustified. Now, possibly salary too has been disbursed for the entire period with the net result being that the expenditure from public exchequer has been incurred without taking any work from the suspended employee for 14 long Page 16 of 20 years! To this end, the Appellant also approached Hon'ble CAT, Jodhpur bench vide OA No. 160/2023 where the Court has specifically directed the organization to review the suspension order and declare the suspension period of 10 years as invalid, however, the same was not adhered. Thereafter, the appellant filed review application which was allowed with the following observations:
".....Thus, it is clear that review of the applicant's suspension w.e.f 27.10.2006 to 31.03.2016 i.e. date of revocation was not considered; it was reviewed and revoked w.e.f 31.03.2016. Not considering the validity of the decade long suspension period w.e.f 27.10 2006 inspite of this Tribunal order dated 23.01.2023 suggests that the respondents totally flouted the extant amended rules circulated by the Railway Board vide RBE No.94/2006 dated 18.07.2006 as also order of this Tribunal. Amended sub-Rule 5 Rule (6) (7) of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 do not allow long suspension without any reviews after ninety days of this suspension. As per the extant rules, suspension of the applicant from 27.10.2006 to 31.03.2016 is totally illegal and invalid. Moreover, merely by stating that "deciding the suspension period because disciplinary proceedings for major penalty against the applicant is still contemplated, therefore, suspension period can only be decided after 8 (OA No.290/00160/2023 the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings", has no justification and is bad in law. Therefore, while allowing this OA, the impugned Order dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside. The suspension period of the applicant from 27.10.2006 to 31.03.2016 is declared invalid and for all purposes, is declared as spent on duty with all consequential benefits to be released to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
As regards the issue of prolonged suspension, attention of the parties is invited towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case titled J. Ghouse Basha vs The Additional Director General of Police & Others, WP No. 14134 of 2017 decided on 22.09.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"...5. The only contention raised is that the criminal case will take long time for final disposal and keeping the writ petitioner under suspension for an un- specified period is bad in law. In other words, prolonged suspension is not advisible and it is a loss to the state exchequer, in view of the fact that the respondent has to pay Subsistence Allowance of 75%, to the petitioner without extracting any work from the employee.Page 17 of 20
6. Thus, it is advisible, that such employees, who are facing criminal proceedings shall be reinstated and they may be allowed to work in any non-sensitive posts as per the orders of the Department, provided the suspension continues beyond reasonable time.
7. This Court, is of the opinion that no doubt, on initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the competent authorities shall issue an order of suspension. But, prolonged suspension for an un-specified period will certainly cause a financial loss to the public exchequer. Therefore, a balance approach to be adopted in this regard. Such employees, who are facing disciplinary proceedings shall be reinstated and they may be posted in a non-sensitive post, so as to avoid further complications in continuing the disciplinary proceedings.
...............
7. Even in the instant case, the facts of the case could show that the respondents have not passed any reasoned order for extension of suspension in respect of the petitioner herein. The petitioner cannot be kept under prolonged suspension. Further, in the case of Ambigapathy, P.S. Vs. The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, reported in 1991 Writ L.R. 273, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the prolonged suspension is unreasonable and without any justification. Following the above said decisions, I am of the opinion, the petitioner herein is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition and the impugned order is liable to be quashed."
xxx
9. The said Judgment by way of an appeal preferred by the State in W.A.No.613 of 2017 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, by confirming an order passed in the writ petition dated 15.06.2017. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court is of the view that prolonged suspension is unnecessary and it is not desirable to keep an employee under suspension for an un-specified period. Contrarily, they shall be reinstated and posted in any non-sensitive post. In such view of the matter, the ground raised in this writ petition deserves to be considered..."
During this entire period, the appellant filed RTI applications and was given misleading and vague replies by the CPIOs, which were not in the spirit of the RTI Act.
In view of the factual matrix of the above ratio and in the backdrop of the instant Appeals, the Commission noted that this is a serious matter of lapse in Page 18 of 20 implementing the RTI Act. The basic objective of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Public Authorities, eradicate corruption, and to make our democracy work for the people in the real sense. But in the present case the then CPIOs have acted with insensitivity overlooking the seriousness of the case and furnished a reply against each RTI application merely for the sake of formality. The element of mala fide on the part of disciplinary authorities cannot be overlooked in the matter. Such circumstances call for an immediate inquiry and necessary action by an officer of appropriate Seniority within the hierarchy of Respondent Public Authority of Northwestern Railway, Jodhpur.
Therefore, by virtue of the powers of the Commission envisaged under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, the Respondent Public Authority is directed to investigate the above said matter through an officer at least one level above the rank/designation of Chief Workshop Manager and to fix responsibility of delinquents/erring officers, as may be found in the inquiry.
First Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Workshop Manager, Northwestern Railway, Jodhpur is hereby given responsibility to place the entire matter before the competent officer in the Respondent Public Authority. The report of the inquiry along with supporting documents be sent to the Commission within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
With these directions, the instant appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 19 of 20 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority Carriage Workshop, Northwestern Railway, Jodhpur - 342001 Page 20 of 20 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)