Central Information Commission
Dilip Kumar Sarkhel vs Northeast Frontier Railway (Guwahati) on 12 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/AB/A/2016/000448-AB
In the matter of:
Dilip Kumar Sarkhel
...Appellant
VS
PIO and Sr. DCM,
North East Frontier Railway,
DRM's Office, Alipurduar Division,
Alipurduar, West Bengal
&
AA/APDJ/ADRM
North East Frontier Railway,
Alipurduar Junction, Alipurduar, West Bengal. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 12.10.2015
CPIO reply : 19.01.2016
First Appeal : 21.12.2015
FAA Order : 25.01.2016
Second Appeal : 28.03.2016
Date of hearing : 23.05.2017,25.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 12.10.2015 sought details relating to the meeting between NF Rly. and Mazdoor Union in respect of pension case. The CPIO NFR/HQ transferred the said RTI application to Sr. DCM/APDJ Cum PIO/APDJ u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act on 19.01.2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 21.12.2015 as no reply was received by him. The FAA vide his order dated 25.01.2016 stated that the ADRM/ Alipurduar is the appellate authority in this case. The appellant filed second appeal and challenged the Sec 6(3) transfer by the CPIO as not proper. He further relied on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of WP(C) 288/2009 and WP(C) 6088/2014.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1
Order
Appellant : Rep. of appellant
Respondent : PIO, Shri Ujjwal Kumar, APO
During the hearing the respondent PIO submitted that they had not received the transferred RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act in the Alipurduar office and only after the receipt of the CIC hearing notice, they provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 17.05.17 which is just and proper and the case should be closed. The appellant submitted that a copy of such transfer under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act was received by him. So, it is quite unlikely that the submission of the PIO that they did not receive any copy of the said RTI application along with Sec 6(3) transfer memo is correct. Since no reply from the respondent in this case was 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.
After perusing the reply, it was found that the reply was not in consonance with the queries raised in the present RTI application.
A Show Cause Notice is issued to CPIO, Sr. DCM and APDJ Alipurduar to explain as to why such information was not provided to the appellant in all these years. The explanation to the said Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission within 21 days of the receipt of the order. On receipt of the explanation to the Show Cause Notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
Be that as it may, since no information was provided so far to the appellant, the present respondent CPIO, Sr. DCM and APDJ, Alipurduar is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant, as available on record including certified true copies of the documents e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc. free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
2The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a compliance report containing the copy of the revised reply and despatch details of the same thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 25.10.2018 Based on submission: Shri Subimal Sen submitted facts as follows;
1. The RTI application of Shri D K Sarkhel dated 12.10.2015 was received from CPIO/NFR on 26.01.2016. Accordingly information as received from the concerned departments was sent to the appellant on 28.03.2016.
2. In response to the notice of hearing dated 02.05.2017, item wise remark pertaining to the division was sent to the applicant with a copy to the CIC vide letter no. C/RTI/Implementation/AP dtd 17.05.2017.
3. As advised vide commission's order dated 21.05.2017, a revised reply was also sent to the applicant vide letter no. C/RTI/Implementation/AP dtd 27.06.2017.
4. In this connection he added that as per the CIC's advice vide letter no. CIC/AB/A/2016/000448 dtd 03.07.2017, a copy of the office letter no. C/RTI/Implementation/AP dtd 22.06.2017 was also provided to the appellant on 12.07.2017.
5. Further, in response to the order nos. CIC/RAILB/A/2016/394498-AB and CIC/RAILB/A/2016/204495-AB, item wise reply of the RTI application of Sri D K Sarkhel dtd 28.03.2016 was sent from DGM(G) cum CPIO(HQ/N F Railway vide letter no. NFR/RTICELL/Misc/OCT- 17/DOPWW/03737 dtd 04.11.2017.
Decision:
Based on the explanation it was noted by the Commission that there was a delay in reply from 26.01.2016 to 28.03.2016 involving a period of about 3 60 days for which strict warning needs to be issued to Shri Subimal Sen, the then CPIO cum Sr. DCM, Alipurduar.
Shri Subimal Sen, is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to the said RTI application should have been provided within the time period stipulated under the RTI Act. 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.
Shri Subimal Sen 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.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 4