Central Information Commission
Gulam Abbas vs Ministry Of Railways on 14 September, 2017
क यसच ू नाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो टऑ फसकेपास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ डजेनयक ू पस , नई!द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/VS/C/2015/000143-AB
In the matter of:
Mr. Gulam Abbas,
...Complainant
Vs.
DPG & CPIO, Nodal CPIO/NR & Mr. Sachin Shukla/PIO,
Ministry of Railway, DGM(Law), West Central Railway,
RTI Cell, Room No-507, Northern Railway, General Manager's Office,
5th floor, Railway Board, Headquarter Office, Jabalpur, General Admin,
New Delhi-110001 Baroda House, RTI Cell, Indira Market,
New Delhi-110001 Jabalpur
NG Hardas, B. Nageswara Rao, APIO,
West Central Railway, GM Office, GM Office,
General Manager's Office, Southern Railway, RTI/PG Cell,
Jabalpur General Admin, Chennai Southern Railway,
RTI Cell, Indira Market, Chennai-Thiruttani-
Jabalpur Renigunta Hwy, NGO
Annexe, George Town,
Chennai, Tamilnadu-600003
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 07.07.2014
CPIO reply : Not on record
First Appeal : Not on record
FAA Order : Not on record
Complaint : 25.03.2015
Date of hearing : 13.01.2017, 23.08.2017
1
Facts:
1. The complainant filed RTI application dated 07.07.2014 seeking information regarding:
compliance of Supreme Court judgment in Sushma Mutrehja's case & CAT/New Delhi's Principal Bench order in OA-1083/2009 by Railway Board; date of receipt of said order by Railway Board & action taken on the judgment by Railway Board's law department, etc.
2. The response of CPIO is not on record. The first appeal of the complainant is not on record. The response of FAA is not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 25.03.2015 with the Commission on the ground that complete information should be provided and to impose penalty.
Hearing:
3. The complainant participated in the hearing through VC. The respondent was personally present in the hearing.
4. The respondent has placed on record his written submissions dated 27.03.2015.
5. The complainant stated that he has filed two RTI applications dated 08.07.2014 and 14.01.2015.
6. The complainant stated that his RTI application dated 08.07.2014 was registered in the respondent website's portal on 08.08.2014 i.e. after 21 working days. The complainant further stated that on 02.09.2014, the respondent had asked him to deposit Rs. 50/- in order to obtain the information. The complainant stated that on 09.09.2014, he had deposited the requisite fees. On 15.10.2014, the CPIO replied to the complainant and provided him the information.
2
7. The complainant stated that he has received the reply/information after three months of his RTI application.
8. The respondent stated that on 12.09.2014, the copying charges of the complainant had been received in the RTI Cell and on 07.10.2014, their APIO- 37 had received the copying charges of the complainant. The respondent stated that on 13.10.2014, information has been provided to the complainant.
9. The complainant stated that his 2nd RTI application dated 14.01.2015 was registered by the respondent on 20.01.2015 and forwarded to APIO, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi; APIO, Southern Railway, Chennai and APIO, West Central Railway, Jabalpur.
10. The complainant further stated that his RTI application has only been transferred from one department to another, but no information has been provided to him.
11. The complainant stated that penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, should be imposed on the respondent for contravening the timelines of the RTI Act. He further prayed before the Commission that his Rs. 50/- copying charges should be refunded to him.
12. The respondent stated that they have transferred the RTI application dated 14.01.2015 to the concerned departments for appropriate action in the matter.
13. The complainant apprised the Commission that the respondent's website is not updated.
The names of CPIOs and their phone numbers are incorrect. The respondent should report compliance within 30 days. He further stated that respondent considers the due date for replying to the RTI application as 30 days after the date of registration of RTI application in their portal, and not the date on which RTI application was received. Discussion/ observation:
3
14. The Commission observed that there is a delay on part of the RTI Cell in transferring the RTI application along with copying charges to the APIO-37.
15. It has also come into the notice of the Commission from the statement made by the complainant in para No. 13 above that the respondent's website portal is not updated with respect to the name and telephone number of the concerned officials.
16. The Commission further noted during the course of hearing that the respondent is calculating the days for disposing off the application from the date of registering in their portal and not from the date of received, which is wrong.
Decision:
17. The CPIO, RTI Cell is directed to show cause in writing the reason for abnormal delay in transferring the RTI application dated 07.07.2014 of the complainant along with copying charges to the APIO-37, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
18. The respondent is directed to correct their portal to indicate the due date of reply as 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI application. The respondent should report compliance within 30 days.
19. The APIO, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi; APIO, Southern Railway, Chennai and APIO, West Central Railway, Jabalpur are directed to explain the delay in replying as mentioned at para No. 9 above, on next date of hearing and to furnish reply within 15 days.
20. The Deputy Registrar is directed to fix a hearing in the matter after 30 days, in which the notice of hearing be issued to the complainant; respondent; CPIO, RTI Cell, Ministry of 4 Railways; APIO, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi; APIO, Southern Railway, Chennai and APIO, West Central Railway, Jabalpur.
(Shri Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Final Order : 23.08.2017 Respondent : 1. Shri M.K Meena, APIO, Dy Director, Railway Board
2. Shri V. Sivaswamy, Dy Director (P), Chennai
3. Shri Arun Kumar Sinha, Dy CPO, Jabalpur
4. Shri Naresh Kumar, SPO, Northern Railway, Delhi
21. During the hearing Shri Raman Kumar Sharma, concerned PIO (Personnel) Northern Railway was not present. The Chennai PIO (present) submitted that he was not the concerned PIO and Shri Nageswar Rao (then PIO) retired on 31.01.2015. The then APIO, Jabalpur submitted that he received the RTI application u/s 6(3) on 24.02.2015 (Para (d)) of the RTI application) and replied on 12.03.2015 and that Shri N.G Hardas, the then PIO retired on 31.07.2016. Shri M.K Meena, Dy Director Estt was present and submitted that the file was missing. Hence, he would not be able to explain the facts of the case. SUBMISSION OF CPIO CHENNAI
22. Shri V.Sivasamy, Dy Director/PG & APIO, Southern Railway reiterated his written submission which was sent to the Commission vide letter dated 17.08.2017 and stated that the para no. (e) of the RTI application dated 14.01.2015 of the RTI application had been received in the office of APIO/ Southern Railway on 27.02.2015 and the same had been forwarded to the public authority concerned viz. PIO/Personnel/Southern Railway/Headquarters and Dy. General Manager/Law on 02.03.2015 i.e within 5 days of receipt of the said RTI application as required in terms of Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the application was 5 forwarded to DGM/Law & PIO as he was presumed to be the custodian of information on court cases. PIO (Personnel)/Hqs and DGM/Law (PIOs) transferred the said application to Sr DPO/PGT and PIO (Personnel) u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, as it was presumed that the said document (Copy of OA No. 263/2011 before the Hon'ble CAT/Ernakulam) might be held by Sr DPO/PGT & PIO. PIO(P) replied to the appellant on 28.05.2015 on item no (e) of the said RTI application. He further submitted the chronology of events involved in replying to the said RTI application is as follows:
DETAILS DATES 1. RTI application dated 14.01.2015 received by RTI Cell/ Railway Board : 20.01.2015 2. The application was forwarded to Southern Railway : 20.02.2015 3. Application received by RTI Cell/Southern Railway : 27.02.2015 4. Application transferred to PIO/ P. Branch (Dy.CPO/L) and DGM/Law : 02.03.2015 5. Application was forwarded by DGM/Law & PIO to Sr DPO/PGT : 22.04.2015 6. PIO/Personnel/PGT & Sr. DPO/PGT replied to the applicant : 28.05.2015
23. He also submitted that the reason for transferring the said RTI application from one authority to another authority was because the custodian of information could not be traced as the applicant had provided only vague details without specifying which Department/ Division/authority had contested the said case. Because of such non specificity in the RTI application, the CPIOs/PIOS concerned transferred it several times sometimes without valid reason. The Commission is however satisfied with the explanation received from the concerned PIO Chennai, and found no malafide intention involved in the delay caused while replying to the RTI application.
SUBMISSION OF CPIO JABALPUR:
24. Shri A.K Srivastava sent a written submission on 21.08.2017 and stated that the said RTI application was addressed to CPIO Railway Board. It was received by the RTI Cell 6 Jabalpur on 24.02.2015. The PIO, Shri Sachin Shukla replied on 12.03.2015 intimating to the applicant that the information sought in regard to para (d) of the said RTI application which was transferred to them was not clear. He further submitted that they did not receive any communication from the appellant till date. The Commission finds the reply on time and reasonable.
SUBMISSION OF CPIO NORTHERN RAILWAY, NEW DELHI
25. Shri Naresh Kumar, CPIO/P cum SPO/ M & E submitted that the RTI application was received from Railway Board on 20.02.2015 and the requisite reply was furnished to the applicant on 11.06.2015 for paras a,b,c & f of the said RTI application. He further submitted that the interim order dated 13.01.2017 was not received in their office. He also stated that the revised reply was sent on 23.08.2017 to the appellant. He explained the reason for delay in furnishing the requisite information by stating that the RTI application was received on 20.02.2015 and the same was forwarded to CPIO/P where it was received on 26.02.2015. Since there are number of sections involved in the case i.e. the cadre controlling section, legal section etc, it took some time for delivering the RTI application to the correct section and finally the RTI application was given to the legal cell on 22.05.2015 for furnishing the requisite information to the appellant. The information was provided on 11.06.2015 to the appellant. The delay of three months in providing the requisite reply to the appellant was accordingly due to administrative reasons and the same was not deliberate. The Commission finds that the then CPIO, Shri Raman Kumar Sharma was responsible for the delay in providing reply dated 11.06.2015. The APIO, Shri I Tirkey had transferred the RTI application on 24.02.2015 and it was pending with the CPIO. The CPIO, Shri Raman Kumar Sharma, chose not to attend the Commission's hearing for submitting any reply to the showcause notice issued nor was he interested in submitting any oral explanation to the show cause notice served on him. 7
26. The Commission finds it a case of extreme callousness on the part of the then CPIO, Personnel for not providing any reply to the applicant within 30 days from the receipt of the RTI application. Therefore, this Commission finds it a fit case to recommend for disciplinary action against the then Central Public Information Officer, (Personnel) Shri Raman Kumar Sharma under the service rules applicable to him u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act for providing delayed reply to the RTI application and for not attending the Commission's hearing for submitting any written/oral explanation to the showcause notice issued to him.
SUBMISSION OF CPIO RAILWAY BOARD
27. Shri M.K Meena sent a letter dated 23.08.2017 in which he stated the RTI application dated 08.08.2014 was received in their section on 14.08.2014 and it was transferred to the Northern Railway and the West Central Railway on 19.08.2014. As regards the information pertaining to Railway Board in this application, the applicant was asked on 02.09.2014 to deposit Rs 50 as photocopying charges for supplying copies of 25 pages containing the information i.e noting and correspondence of the file dealing with Court case as processed in the Railway Board. On receipt of the payment on 30.09.2014 the available information was supplied on 13.10.2014.
28. Based on the above submission, the Commission finds that the RTI dated 07.07.2014 was registered by the Railway Board as 08.08.2014, which was also mentioned by the complainant in his complaint memo. The complainant in his complaint memo stated that he had sent the RTI application on 08.07.2014 by speed post which was delivered on 10.07.2014 at the Railway Board. That the Railway Board had enlisted it on 08.08.2014 (involving a delay of about 29 days) only after a number of telephone calls were made to the RTI/Cell and the target date was given as 07.09.2014. He also submitted that after that he received a letter dated 02.09.2014 from Shri M.K Meena for deposition of Rs 8 50/- as photocopying charges. He also stated in his complaint that he deposited the money under protest vide letter dated 14.09.2014 and received the information also. But the amount of Rs 50/- was yet to be refunded to him. The letter dated 14.09.2014 was perused in which the complainant mentioned speed post no. as EM254986851IN which proves that the said communication was delivered on 10.07.2014 to the railway board. Thus it was established that the RTI application dated 08.07.2014 was received in the Railway Board on 10.07.2014 but it was registered by the railway board only on 08.08.2014. The above fact shows that there was a definite procedural lacunae in dealing with the said RTI application in the Railway Board as it involved a period of 29 days just to register the RTI application. Though several explanations were received but none of the PIOs from the railway board submitted any documentary proof to substantiate their claim that the RTI application was dated 08.08.2014 and not 08.07.2014 and it was received in their section on 14.08.2014 in which case the claim of photocopying charges on 02.09.2014 would have been justified. Since the PIOs from the railway board could not justify this, the Commission finds it appropriate to direct Shri M.K Meena, APIO-37 & DDE (N), Railway Board to refund the Rs 50 photocopying charges paid by the complainant at South East Central Railway, Nagpur (Divisional cash Counter) on 09.09.2014 vide money receipt no. 197955. The above amount should be refunded within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
29. In respect of his subsequent RTI application dated 14.01.2015 received by the railway board on 19.01.2015 and listed on 20.01.2015 with case ID no. 010048902 with target date 19.02.2015, the complainant submitted that despite the target date being upto 19.02.2015, the railway board acted upon his application only on 20.02.2015, and he received the letter dated 20.02.2015 from the APIO-37 on 03.03.2015. He stated that the transfers of the RTI application under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Northern Railway, Southern railway and 9 West Central Railway were done beyond the stipulated period of 5 days from the date of receipt of the said RTI application by the respondent.
30. The above submission of the complainant is directly opposite to the written submission dated 23.08.2017 of Shri M.K Meena Deputy Director Estt (N) in which it was mentioned that the RTI application dated 21.01.2015, regd ID RB/RTI/2014/010048902 was received in their section on 05.02.2015 and which was transferred to the concerned zonal offices on 20.02.2015 itself.
31. The Commission is unable to understand why the dates of the RTI application were misrepresented by Shri M.K Meena, Deputy Director Estt (N). The RTI application dated 14.01.2015 was quoted by him as 21.01.2015 which is factually incorrect. This insensitive way of dealing with the RTI application by the railway board had cultivated serious doubts about the seriousness of the CPIO, Railway Board in dealing with the present RTI applications. An officer cannot and should not change the dates of the RTI application according to his own convenience. The copy of the postal tracking details of the RTI application dated 08.07.2014 makes it abundantly clear that the said RTI application was delivered on 10.07.2014 to the concerned respondent. During the hearing before the CIC, it was submitted by Shri M.K Meena that the files relating to the complainant's RTI applications were missing which is not at all acceptable to the Commission. He failed to explain the reason for mishandling the RTI applications, delay in transferring the same u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, illegal claim of photocopying charges, delay in registration of the RTI applications and manipulation of the dates of RTI application. The present case is a glaring instance of the callous and negligent attitude of the CPIO, Railway Board towards implementation of the RTI Act. The plea of files being missing at this stage would not absolve the concerned CPIO, railway board from his liability under the RTI Act. Therefore, this Commission finds it a fit case to recommend for disciplinary action against the 10 concerned Central Public Information Officer, Shri M.K Meena, Deputy Director Estt. (N) Railway Board under the service rules applicable to him u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act for obstructing malafidely the furnishing of information under the provision of the RTI Act.
The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to General Manager, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway and Member (Staff) Railway Board for information and necessary further action in this case. With the order for initiation of penal action against the CPIO as mentioned above, the complaint is disposed of.
Copies of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar Copy to : General Manager, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway and Member (Staff) Railway Board, New Delhi 11