Central Information Commission
Shine P. Sasidhar vs Central Railway on 20 February, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/CRAIL/A/2017/140605
In the matter of:
Shine P Sasidhar
...Appellant
Vs.
PIO and Sr DMM, Central Railway, DRM
Office, Ground Floor, Annex Building, Mumbai
Maharashtra- 400001
&
PIO and Assistant Security Commissioner
Central Railway, O/o the Sr. Divl. Security
Commissioner, RFP, Mumbai, Maharashtra
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 09.02.2017
CPIO reply : 22.03.2017
First Appeal : 19.04.2017
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 09.06.2017
Date of hearing : 17.01.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 09.02.2017 sought information on three points regarding publication of CCTV footage of Kharghar railway station, Navi Mumbai (CR) in a newspaper, whether any enquiry in this regard had been initiated or not by the respondent authority to find out facts regarding the alleged grave security lapse, if any enquiry had been conducted, details of 1 the action taken against errant officers/ officials and details of measures taken to prevent such security lapse i.e. CCTV footage leakage in future. The CPIO replied on 22.03.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 19.04.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 09.06.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Narender Pawar,
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager
cum CPIO, Central Railway
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 17th July, 2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed. Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent. He submitted that through another RTI application he received reply that CCTV footage is maintained by security personnel and law enforcing agency. Hence, he wanted to know how the same footage was received by the newspaper agency. He further submitted that behind the CCTV footage leakage there must have been involvement of other railway employees 2 as well who were the custodian of the record regarding the CCTV footage discussed above.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the Additional Security Commissioner, Shri Pranav Kumar u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act transferred the said RTI application to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Navi Mumbai, vide letter dated 02.03.2017. The CPIO (Security) replied vide letter dated 22.03.2017 stating that the sought for information is related to the Commercial Department. A copy of the letter dated 09.01.2018 addressed to the Sr DCM (PIO) from the Additional Security Commissioner was submitted to the Commission, in which the Sr DCM cum PIO was advised to attend the CIC hearing as the information is related to the Commercial Department.
Shri Narendar Panwar, Sr DCM cum PIO handed over a written submission to the Commission during the hearing stating brief facts of the case as follows:
"On 22/02/2016, Smt. X, (name withheld) TC was performing her duty at Kharghar station. A phone call from unidentified person was received by Assistant Commercial Manager (TC) regarding manhandling of lady passenger by TC staff at Kharghar. Hence ACM (TC) Shri L.B Yadav summoned Smt. X and Smt. Y to his office to verify facts. Both the staff attended office at around 1100 hrs on 23.02.2016. Smt X allegedly misbehaved with ACM (TC) in presence of Chief Ticket Inspector Shri Sunil Kumar. She threw her Excess Fare Receipt (EFR) and Badge on table of ACM (TC) and left the office. Subsequently, she came along with union office bearers (NRMU) and created scene in ACM (TC) chamber. The same was witnessed by Assistant Commercial Manager (Coaching) Shri R.P Gupta and Sr. Police Inspector (GRP).
Complaint was lodged by ACM (Cog) about the incidence. A committee was formed to investigate the matter.3
On 11.03.2016, a news article along with CCTV clippings appeared in Mumbai Mirror highlighting incidence occurred on 22.02.2016 at Kharghar station. The incidence was recorded on CCTV camera installed at the station. Based on the above news paper article and CCTV footage, Smt X, Sr. TC was placed under suspension. Her suspension was revoked on 16.03.2016 and she was transferred to Belapur station and asked to work without EFR.
On 11.03.2016, a preliminary fact finding enquiry by committee of 3 officers was ordered by Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager for various issues raised by ACM (Cog).
A letter dated 02.06.2016 was received from Ms Rekha Sharma, Member National Commission for Women, New Delhi, Government of India, citing the media report and recommending the General Manager, Central Railway for intervention in the matter and send report. On 14.06.2016 Smt. X lodged a complaint to Divisional Railway Manager regarding harassment at workplace.
A letter dated 05.08.2016 was received from Shri Praveen Singh, Counsellor / Technical Expert enclosing a copy of complaint lodged by Shri Hari Krishan regarding harassment meted to his wife Smt. X at her work place. Shri Krishnan also sought enquiry as to how CCTV footage of Kharghar station leaked from railway authorities and it was just to malign and defame modesty of his wife.
Thus simultaneous investigations were in progress in unruly behaviour of NRMU union office bearers, complaint lodged by Smt X about harassment at work place, letter of Ms Rekha Sharma and also about leakage of CCTV footage to media.
DRM vide order on note no.BB/P/C/TC/2-16 dated 18.10.2016 noted that-4
"Many issues have got linked. It would be better if all issues are examined together by the existing committee by including one women officer, now since the issue of harassment at workplace by female employee has also been raised. The Committee can enquire into everything from the start of the incident till the allegations levelled by female employee. Accordingly, APO(Shed) Smt. Geeta Krishnan is nominated."
He further submitted that thus the case files were clubbed together as per the directions of DRM/BB for starting investigations in regard to various similar cases and complaints narrated above.
The concerned file had thus become voluminous, hence the applicant was informed about the voluminous nature of the concerned record vide letter dated 17.07.2017. Further, he was advised to visit the concerned office on any working day for going through the relevant files for seeking the desired information. Not satisfied with this reply, Shri S.P Sasidhar, appellant submitted first appeal to the officer on special duty services and the concerned First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the present case. The required information was provided by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to the appellant vide letter dated 29.09.2017 wherein the reply provided by the Sr. DCM & PIO was upheld and the appellant was requested to approach the Sr. DCM & PIO's office for perusal of relevant files on any working day after giving three days' prior notice to the concerned railway authority concerned. Till date, Shri S P Shashidhar had not communicated to their office any date for his visit for inspecting the above stated documents.
Based on the above submission, it was noted by the Commission that the CPIO's plea of requesting the appellant for inspection of documents was not proper. The appellant had sought specific information regarding exposure of CCTV footage of Kharghar railway station, Navi Mumbai (CR) in a newspaper 5 i.e. whether any enquiry in this regard has been initiated to find out how such CCTV footage was leaked to newspapers.
The reply dated 22.03.2017 was interim in nature. The reply dated 17.07.2017 was as follows:
" It is to inform you that the information sought by you is voluminous in nature, compilation of which will involve disproportionate diversion of staff resources. You are advised to visit this office (with at least 03 days prior intimation in writing) on any working day between 1000 hrs to 1700 hrs for going through the relevant files for seeking the desired information."
The reply dated 29.09.2017 was as follows:
"your initial RTI application was carefully gone through and the information provided by Sr DCM & PIO vide letter dated 17.07.2017 was perused. Sr DCM and PIO has informed that the information sought by you is voluminous in nature, compilation of which will involve diversion of human resources disproportionately. Further, you had been advised to visit DRM office on any working day between 1000 hrs and 1700 hrs with three days prior intimation for going through relevant files and seek the desired information.
Subsequent upon your appeal for receiving the above information was referred to Sr DCM & PIO, who has reiterated the information given earlier. In the case of Shri Hitesh Kumar Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Decision no. 570/ICPB/2007 F No. PBA/06/562 dated 15.06.2017) the Hon'ble CIC has mentioned as under-
" The information sought for is so voluminous covering practically the entire gamut of functioning of the Company, that it would definitely cause a lot of pressure on the resources of the company. The appellant is at liberty to ask for specific information which would not cause enormous time and efforts to collect and furnish."6
In view of the above, you may personally approach Sr DCM & PIO office for perusal of relevant files, on any working day after giving three day prior intimation."
The Commission is of the view that the reply was not proper as the voluminous nature of the records involved does not by any stretch of reasoning be an obstacle to providing reply to the query "whether any inquiry has been initiated or not to find out facts regarding the alleged grave security lapse". The reply of the CPIO which was confirmed by the FAA subsequently was therefore a lackadaisical reply calculated to frustrate the effort of the appellant to seek information on this important issue, the information sought in para 1 of the RTI application should have been provided to the appellant without inviting him for a record inspection at the office of the respondent. Moreover, records were available in respect of para 2 of the said RTI application, the same also should have been provided after masking the names of the third parties involved in the present case, u/s 10 of the RTI Act. In respect of para 3 of the RTI application, details of measures taken, if any, to prevent such security breach such as CCTV footage leakage in future should also have been provided to the appellant.
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information in respect of paras contained in the above stated RTI application within 7 days from the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 7