Central Information Commission
Sunil Kumar vs Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 11 March, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ERAIL/A/2023/114081
SUNIL KUMAR .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
DGM, Eastern Railway, HQ,
Fairlie Place, 1st Floor, 17,
N.S. Road, Fairlie Place,
Kolkata - 700001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29-02-2024
Date of Decision : 07-03-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26-11-2022
CPIO replied on : 05-12-2022
First appeal filed on : 31-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26-02-2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"Particular of Information Sought U/S 6(1) RTI Act 2005. Reference (i): Letter dated 31-10-2022, enclosed herewith this RTI application issued by Shri Vikash Anand. Sr. Divisional Elect. Engineer(G), Eastern Railway, Howrah.Page 1 of 8
(ii) Letter dated 15-11-2022, enclosed herewith this RTI application which was addressed to the AEE/CHG/HWH, Eastern Railway, Howrah by working President of ERMU/River side Branch / Howrah.
(iii) A copy of Railway Board's Circular related to payment of OTA and TA, enclosed herewith this RTI application.
In regard to above reference please furnish the following information:-
I. Please refer to ref. No. (i) and inform whether any fresh circular has been issued (except 2020/E(LL)/OTA/1 which was issued due to the COVID outbreak) by the Railway Board or Eastern Railway Howrah Division to control the revenue, expenditure of Eastern Railway, Howrah.
II. Please refer to ref. No. (i) and inform whether the permission has been obtained from the Railway Board, New Delhi, by the Divisional Elect. Engineer (G), Eastern Railway, Howrah, before asking for suggestion. Please furnish the certified copy of the said permission.
III. Please refer to ref. No. (i) inform if any survey was conducted prior to the issuance of this letter to ensure the safety of the passengers. Please furnish the certified copy of that survey.
IV. Please refer to ref. no. (i) and inform who will be held accountable if any unfortunate incident occurs as a result of insufficient railway personnel under Elect. Division Eastern Railway. Howrah.
V. Please refer to reference number (i) and provide information on what duties or departments will be assigned to OED staff after the OED category is outsourced..
VI. Please refer to ref. No. (i) and inform on what basis the duty hours of an escorting staff will be refixed from 8 hours to 12 hours in a day. Please furnish the certified copy of the said permission.
VII. Please refer to ref. no. (i) and inform who will be held accountable if such a change affects the promotion of permanent OED staff.
VIII. Please refer to ref. No. (i); as per the letter, the OED category is to be outsourced. Please inform whether the OED staff will get TA and other allowances which they usually get while on escorting duty after such alteration.
IX. Please refer to reference number (i) and inform when this change is expected to be implemented on the Eastern Railway. Howrah.
Page 2 of 8X. Please refer to ref. No. (i), Letter No. E/Union/ERMU/DRM-PNM dated 14.10.22 and furnish the copy of order/resolution or any such direction, which is passed in PNM meeting.
XI. Please refer to ref. No.(i) and furnish the complete detail of funds allocated or approved for OTA. TA, and NDA in the financial years 2021-2022 and 2022- 2023 for Electrical (G), Eastern Railway. Howrah Division.
XII. Please refer to ref. No.(i) and furnish the complete detail of funds spent for OTA, TA, and NDA out of the total allocated or approved in the financial years 2021-2022 and 2022-23 for Electrical (CG). Eastern Railway, Howrah Division.
XIII. Please refer to ref. No.(i) and furnish the remaining funds out of the total allocated or approved fund for OTA, TA, and NDA in the financial years 2021- 2022 and 2022-23 for Electrical (G), Eastern Railway, Howrah Division.
XIV. A case vide case number 1214/2022 is pending before the Hon'ble CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL in the matter of OED staff. In such case the matter has become sub judice. Please inform if the Shri Vikash Anand, Sr. Divisional Elect. Engineer(G), Eastern Railway, Howrah has taken permission from the hon'ble CAT before issuing such letter related to outsourcing of OEL) staff? Please provide the certified copy of permission of the same.
XV. Please refer to ref. No.(i)and notify if any such act, circular, or order exists that empowers the decision/suggestion to outsource OED staff by Shri Vikash Anand, Sr. Divisional Elect Engineer(G), Eastern Railway, Howrah. Please furnish the copy of that act of the Railway Ministry or any order pertaining to such decision or suggestion.
XVI. Please refer to ref. No.(ii), according to this Railway Board's Circular OTA and TA must be paid to railway staff within 60 days, but the payment of OTA and TA for escorting staff is still pending as of 10.11, 2021, and August 20, 2021, respectively. Please furnish the reason for the delay of such payment.
XVII. Please refer to ref. no. (i). The meeting with both unions was supposed to be conducted in two weeks from the issuance of that letter. Please inform if the meeting was conducted on its scheduled time. if conducted, what resolution is passed in that meeting? Please provide a copy of the resolution passed in that meeting.
Page 3 of 8XVIII. Please refer to ref. no. (ii) and furnish the copy of the action taken report on the said representation."
The CPIO vide its letter dated 05.12.2022 had given point-wise reply/information to the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Garima, DEEG & APIO, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DPO & PIO and Shri Sachinder, ASC present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent while contesting the second appeal of the Appellant submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.12.2022. The reply of the Respondent was seen during the hearing.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal is aggrieved that complete and correct information was not provided to him as per his RTI application.
The Commission observes that complete point-wise reply/information has already been informed to the Appellant as per his RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.Page 4 of 8
Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that today 9 (nine) second appeals of the Appellant are being heard so that he does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from inconvenience. On one hand, the Commission is devoting very substantive time on his cases, and on the other, the Appellant by choosing to be absent in the hearing, has adopted a very casual, in fact, irresponsible approach.
In view of this, the Commission finds it pivotal to highlight a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a manner. In this regard, ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter. "
The Commission further observes that the Appellant appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act and is largely not well acquainted with the basic requirements and interpretation of the Act in terms of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the CPIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his right to information.
The Commission further observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is unspecific/cumbersome and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. As it appears it would be impossible for the public authorities to provide information of such magnitude in any form and will be further unreasonable to expect the CPIOs to correctly apply their mind to decipher Page 5 of 8 what information can be provided or what should be exempted. Moreover, in the instant RTI Application, the Appellant has sought for multitude information involving clarifications/explanation from the CPIO which also do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. Despite these, the Respondent has provided point- wise reply/information to the Appellant, in the spirit of the RTI Act.
Even if the Commission were to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant in his second appeal, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is neither absolute nor unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information.
The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, Page 6 of 8 tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Commission observed that despite due notice, the Appellant neither appeared in person nor through someone duly authorized by him before the Commission to press his case. The Commission further observed that the Appellant has earlier filed 4 (four) number of Appeals with the Respondent Public Authority, he has not appeared in any case. Further, the Appellant has not enclosed his identity proof along with his second appeal. Even an official from Metro Railway, HQ, Kolkata appearing in this case informed the Commission that whenever they send replies to the Appellant through office dak runner, it was returned with the remarks "no one with the name of Sunil Kumar is residing on the address".
It is also noted that all the RTI applications have been filed in offline mode and payment has been made through postal orders.
In the past also, the Appellant never appeared before the CPIO/FAA when opportunity was afforded for hearing the specific requirement of information or grievances, if any.
The Appellant has not disclosed the public purpose, if any, for seeking such detailed and highly specific information.
It appears that the Appellant does not intend to disclose his/her true identity. The knowledge displayed in the RTI application indicates the person is well versed with the subject of Indian Railways, its functioning and particularly the electrical works of various types of coaches.
The Registrar, CIC is directed to ensure that the Appellant invariably submits his identity proof before his case is registered in future.
Further, in future, if the Appellant files RTI application response to which is to be ultimately furnished by a CPIO closer to the address of the Appellant then Page 7 of 8 the Respondent is advised to facilitate inspection of records to the Appellant by calling him in their office within the said jurisdiction as first opportunity and if the Appellant has any grievance then same may be heard and effort be made to redress it.
The Appellant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 07-03-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 8 of 8