Central Information Commission
Belas Prasad vs North Eastern Railway (Gorakhpur) on 31 October, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/NERLG/A/2017/175713
In the matter of:
Belas Prasad
...Appellant
VS
Mr. Jitendra Kumar,
(the then Sr. D Engineer/Co-ordination)
Northeast Railway, O/o the DRM/Engineer,
Ashok Marg, Prem Nagar, Hazratganj, Lucknow - 226001.
&
Shri Jitendra Kumar
(the then Sr. D Engineer/Co-ordination)
Bungalow No. 15, Ingartan Road,
Bandariya Bagh, Lucknow - 226001. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 10.06.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 18.07.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 10.09.2016
Date of hearing : 12.03.2018, 09.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 10.06.2016 sought information on nine points; copies of notings related to the action taken for eviction of illegal occupants from Bunglow no-3, number of days for which the said bungalow was in occupation, copy of voucher relating to the payment of damage rent, copy of details relating to the plinth area of the said bungalow and other related information. The CPIO's reply or 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 1 under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 10.09.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Smt. Jyoti Bhaskar,
Senior Electronic Data Processing Manager
cum PIO, along with
Shri R.K. Mishra, Assistant Town Engineer
North Eastern Railway
During the hearing, it was submitted by the nodal CPIO, Office of the DRM, North Eastern Railway that the concerned CPIO in this case is CPIO (Engineering) and Sr. Divisional Engineer (Coordination). It was submitted by the nodal PIO that in spite of communication from the nodal PIO dated 09.3.2018, the present CPIO, Shri Jitender Kumar chose to absent himself from the hearing without any reason whatsoever. In his place, Shri R.K. Mishra, Assistant Town Engineer was present without any briefing. It was also admitted by Shri R.K. Mishra, Assistant Town Engineer that no reply was provided to the appellant in the present case.
The appellant was not present to plead his case.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the present CPIO, Shri Jitender Kimar, CPIO(Engineering) and Sr. Divisional Engineer (Coordination) u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
i) Why he was absent on the day of hearing i.e. on 12.03.2018 without taking prior permission of the Commission and why he sent a junior colleague to the Commission's hearing without proper briefing.
ii) Why no reply was provided to the appellant in almost two years.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission 2 indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The then respondent CPIO should note that in the event of non- submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the then respondent CPIO/PIO.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the present respondent PIO, Shri Jitender Kumar, Divisional Engineer(Co-ordination) is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as per the provision of the RTI Act and as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letter, correspondence, e-mail etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 07 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above Show cause/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 09.10.2018
Respondent : Shri Jitendra Kumar
Director/ Track Machine
RDSO, Lucknow
Shri Jitendra Kumar, Director/ Track Machine, RDSO, Lucknow submitted that he was almost sure to attend the hearing before the Hon'ble 3 Information Commissioner on 12.03.2018, but owing to the following reasons Shri R K Mishra, Assistant Town Engineer could attend the hearing on his behalf.
(a) The project on furnishing of new railway amenities to travelling passengers in Lucknow was scheduled to be inaugurated in a public meeting by important dignitaries such as Hon'ble Home Minister and Hon'ble Railway Minister, Government of India on 18th March 2018.
(b) At a very short notice meeting related to review of the said works and preparatory works was held by the General Manager, NER on 12th March 2018, clashing with the CIC hearing scheduled for the same date.
(c) Being Sr. DEN/Coordination, he was entrusted with the work of completing the remaining works so as to make the programme successful.
(d) The then ADRM/LJN directed Shri R K Mishra to attend the CIC's hearing in New Delhi on his behalf.
(e) Shri R K Mishra was the only officer working under him and he was also incharge of maintenance of Railway Colony in Lucknow. Moreover he was properly briefed about this RTI case before he attended the CIC's hearing in Delhi.
2. He further submitted that information on many points was related to information maintained in head quarter at Gorakhpur which could not be made available timely. The information sought from the head quarter had now been made available to Shri Bilas Prasad vide letter no. W/523/LJN/Soochna Adhikar/62/W-4B dated 02.04.2018 with a copy endorsed to the Central Information Commission. The compliance report as per the directive of the Commission had also been submitted to the CIC which was sent to the appellant as well. He also submitted that the reply of the related RTI sent to the appellant was undelivered and the same was received back in his office.
4Decision:
Based on the above explanation, the Commission observed that the absence during the previous hearing was sufficiently explained by Shri Jitendra Kumar. However, the explanation for delay of two years in providing information to the appellant is not tenable. In view of the above, the Commission issues strict warning against Shri Jitendra Kumar that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
With the above warning, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharya (अ मताभ भ!टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सच ू ना आय# ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra Dy. Registrar 011- 26182594 / [email protected] अजय कु मार तलपा , उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5