Central Information Commission
Raj Sharma vs Northern Railway on 6 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NRAIL/A/2023/639812
Raj Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Northern Railway, Construction
Organization Headquarters,
1569, Church Road, Kashmere
Gate, Delhi - 110006 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2024
Date of Decision : 05.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 30.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"Following observations have been made under the contract of Maintenance & repair works of offices, Rest Houses, Audit office and staff quarters including external painting of Gole building and other Page 1 of 8 allied works at CAO/C office complex, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Agreement number 55- G/C/K.GATE/DELHI during the proposal sent for vetting the New NS items by Shri Pankaj Section officer Finance having mobile number 971769553 working under AFA/C/E&EG and duly vetted by AFA/C/E&EG.
1. For NS-39 brand name of the proposed item has been asked for.
2. For NS-40 image of the item has been asked for.
Please provide attested photocopy of the authority from Shri Pankaj Section officer- Finance Kashmere Gate having mobile number *******553 working under AFA/C/E&EG under which he has the authority for asking for brand name and image for proposed NS items."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.06.2023 stating as under:
"Sh. Pankaj, SSO/C/FX (Finance Expenditure), under the capacity of a Finance Officer, to discharge the duty of scrutiny of all proposals assigned to him involving financial implications has the Authority to seek such information as considered necessary to reduce expenditure from concerned Unit with the approval of Competent Authority under Item No.8 (B) of MSOP 2018 on Works matter.
This has the approval of Dy. FA&CAO/C/Exp."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 21.07.2023, held as under:
"As stated by Appellant: "I have asked a particular question regarding authority under which Sh.Pankaj, SSO/C/Fin has asked for brand and image of the item."
Reply: This particular question has been suitably answered in the reply vide this office letter no. 2023/C/ A/cs/RTI/FX dated 19.6.2023 specifically quoting Item No.8 (B) of MSOP 2018 on Works matter whereby powers are delegated. It is further added in the reply that Sh. Pankaj has asked for the information under the approval of Competent Authority.
Thus information asked in RTI application no. NRCOG/A/E/23/00015 is specifically and completely answered to.
Page 2 of 8Appellant also stated: "This also remains the fact that as per CVC ruling on the subject of asking brand name is illegal. But Sh. Pankaj has violated that order"
Reply: It is stated that no such CVC ruling as is available in the office. Sh. Pankaj, SSO/C/FX while asking Brand name, image of item etc. has followed basic finance tenets as quoted in Canons of Financial Propriety (Para116 IRFC Vol.I) that "every Government servant should exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys as a person ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of expenditure of his own money."
As such, there is no violation of powers by Sh. Pankaj, SSO/C/FX. It is further added that the information being raised by the Appellant is related to a Contract Agreement of CAO/C office sent to Finance for vetting/concurrence by Concerned Units, where all related documents are kept in safe custody which may not be available to Third Party unless asked for under RTI applications. As such, this office cannot provide any further information about a Contract Agreement to the Appellant, Sh. Raj Sharma."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Puja Makhija, CPIO and Shri Pankaj, SSO, appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that specific documents asked for was not provided by the respondent. He stated that item 8(b) of MSOP-2018 does not provide any powers to any authority to seek such information as considered necessary to reduce expenditure. Therefore, the reply given by the respondent doesn't hold good for justifying his asking the brand name and image of the item under Item 8(b) of MSOP-2018.
He argued that the competent authority cannot give approval beyond the powers delegated to him. In this case the competent authority has crossed the line in giving the approval to a wrong thing. The appellant also stated that the claim of AFA/C/E&EG that no such CVC ruling which prohibits asking brand name is available with them is quite surprising. The appellant stated that he Page 3 of 8 has matched the specifications as given in the contract which has been verified by the competent officer which renders disclosure of brand name immaterial. Hence, he is all the more surprised on the queries seeking brand name.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the CPIO has already replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 20.06.2023 and the FAA has clarified the same in detail vide order dated 21.07.2023. The respondent further submitted that they had filed a written submission dated 14.11.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. "MSOP-2018 Item No.8 (B) on Works Matter related to decide the competency of sanction and has no relevance to the information etc.
2. The proposal for introduction of two New Non schedule Items in the existing contract was sent by Dy. CE/C/SERD-I (Engineering Department, Railways) for concurrence. During consideration of this matter Finance needs to ascertain the guidelines as pre Para 116 of Indian Railway Finance Code Volume-I which is reiterated below :-
"Canon of financial propriety says: The expenditure should not prima facie be more than the occasion demands, and that "every Government servant should exercise the same vigilance in respect of expenditure incurred from public moneys as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise maport of the expenditure of his own money."
3. In view of the above, Photo/Brand name of the proposed Non- Scheduled Item was asked from Executive i.e. Dy. CE/C/SERD-I (Railways). Upon submission of satisfactory replay by executive on the queries raised by associate finance of Railway, the proposal of new NS item in the existing contract was concurred by Accounts.
4. Further, it is stated that this correspondence was between the Engineering Department (Railways) and Accounts Department (Railways) and has no reference to the firm/contractor.
Thus, the reply submitted by Railways may kindly be considered complete by Hon'ble CIC and it is requested to kindly consider to close the case."
Page 4 of 8Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought attested photocopy of the authority under which Shri Pankaj Section officer- Finance Kashmere Gate, has the competence to seek brand name and image for proposed NS items. The respondent replied that Sh. Pankaj, SSO/C/FX (Finance Expenditure), under the capacity of a Finance Officer, to discharge the duty of scrutiny of all proposals assigned to him involving financial implications has the Authority to seek such information as considered necessary to reduce expenditure from concerned Unit with the approval of Competent Authority under Item No.8 (B) of MSOP 2018 on Works matter.
The appellant challenged the power of the competent authority as explained by the respondent while justifying in asking of brand name and image of the item under Item 8(b) of MSOP-2018. Prima Facie appears that the respondent authorities are trying to justify the actions of Shri Pankaj, SSO/C/FX (Finance Expenditure) in disregard to CVC guidelines. The reply/information as available with the respondent has been informed to the appellant. The appellant seems to have a genuine grievance and the same should be raised before an appropriate forum as the Commission is not a grievance redressal forum.
As far as RTI is concerned, the Commission finds that reply given by the respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. However, despite oral directions of the Commission during the hearing a copy of the written submission was neither served to the appellant nor proper written submission wherein name of the concerned CPIO/FAA was filed with the Commission. The actions of the CPIO are viewed seriously and Ms. Puja Makhija, CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future while filing written submission and appearing before the Commission.
A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated CPIO's and FAA's of the respondent department, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.Page 5 of 8
In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."Page 6 of 8
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to the Chief Engineer (Construction)-I, Northern Railway, Construction Organization Headquarters, New Delhi to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their CPIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeals in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
Chief Engineer (Construction)-I, Northern Railway, Construction Organization Headquarters, New Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is 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 Copy To:
Chief Engineer (Construction)-I, Northern Railway, Construction Organization Headquarters, 1569, Page 7 of 8 Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 THE FAA, Chief Engineer Const HQ, Northern Railway, Construction Organization Headquarters, 1569, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110006 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)