Central Information Commission
Shri O.P.Mehra vs M/O Railways on 3 February, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000025
Dated February 3, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri O.P.Mehra
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Railways
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.3.8.09 with the CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi requesting for information against 4 points with regard to the 'investigation report' submitted by the Railway Board to CVC with Railway Board ID No.2007/V4/NWR/ST/43 dt.17.10.08. Shri Shivdan Singh, CPIO-II replied on 1.9.09 enclosing point wise information furnished by Shri Manish Mathur, Dy. Director (Vigilance) vide his note dt.31.8.09. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.17.9.09 with the Appellate Authority questioning when investigation report of an officer i.e. SDGM&CVO/NWR can be made available. He also took exception to the denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) against point 1 as the functions of a public authority in official capacity or the information generated due to the official working of a public authority in no way can be termed as personal information. He also stated that by asking him to approach NWR for information against points 3 and 4, the CPIO has violated the section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Shri P.K.Sharma, Appellate Authority replied on 21.10.09 enclosing the information dt.20.10.09 from Shri Manish Mathur, Dy. Director (Vigilance) stating that the earlier reply still holds good. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.12.11.09 before CIC reiterating his request for information and praying for imposition of penalty for violating the provisions of RTI Act.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 3, 2010.
3. Shri D.S.Parida, US(A) representing CPIO, Shri Vikas Purwar, Dir/Vig(M), Shri N.K.Sharma, Jt. Director (Vig.) and Shri R.Vijayan Nair, Dy. Director (Vig.) (Int.) represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that after 80 computers were procured by the Public Authority, complaints were received regarding their functioning. The Appellant who was one of the members of the committee for procurement of the computers was asked to inspect them and submit a report which he refused to do and this task was entrusted to somebody who found that the firm had supplied pirated software. Subsequently action was taken against the Appellant. The Appellant on the other hand denied having refused to conduct the inspection. According to him he requested that the inspection be done by RITES as per rules. With regard to the investigation report, the Appellant stated that he had filed 2 complaints, one against the Chief Vigilance Officer and the other against the Controller of Stores and that he is seeking the file notings/internal investigation report in respect of his complaint against the Controller of Stores, as the Public Authority has already provided the file notings in respect of the complaint against the CVO, to another Appellant in response to an RTI application . A copy of the report along with copies of file notings in respect of the CVO were produced before the Commission by the Appellant. The Commissioner inspected the file notings related to the complaint against the Controller Stats and after ascertaining that there is nothing sensitive in them, which was also agreed to by the Respondent, directed the PIO to provide attested copies of the notings to the Appellant after using , if required, Section 10(1) of the RTI Act to sever parts of the notings which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1), while explaining as per Section 10(2) the reasons for the severance . The Commission also directs the PIO to transfer the RTI application to PIO, NWR with the direction to provide information against points 3 and 4 to the Appellant directly, free of cost, while again using, if required, Section 10(1) for severance of parts of information exempt from disclosure while giving reasons as per Section 10(2) .
6. The information to be provided by 5.3.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 15.3.10.
7. The PIO is also directed to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not transferring the RTI application to the NW Railway within the stipulated period of 5 days as given in the Act. He is directed to submit his written response to the Commission by 3.3.10.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri O.P.Mehra CSTE/C West Central Railway Jabalpur
2. The PIO Ministry of Railways O/o Joint Secretary (G) & CPIO-II Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority Ministry of Railways O/o Adviser (Staff) Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC