Central Information Commission
Mr.Chandra Prakash vs Ministry Of Railways on 24 June, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000828
CIC/AD/A/2011/000923
CIC/AD/A/2011/000942
Date of Hearing : June 24, 2011
Date of Decision : June 24, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Chandra Prakash
S/o Late Lalta Prasad
H.No.327
South to Shiv - Mandir Chauraha
Nikah Ghar Road
Mohalla - Chhota Quazipur
Gorakhpur 273 001
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Gorakhpur.
Respondents
North Eastern Railway
O/o the General Manager
Gorakhpur 273 012
Represented by : Shri V.K.Gupta, PIO & DGM(G)
Shri P.K.Srivastava, APIO & Dy.CPO(IR)
NIC Studio, Gorakhpur
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000828
CIC/AD/A/2011/000923
CIC/AD/A/2011/000942
ORDER
Background CIC/AD/A/2011/000828
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.1.6.10 with the PIO, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur seeking inspection of the File No.Ka/175/MW/Courtcase/Chandra Prakash/98. The PIO replied on 20.7.10 requesting the Applicant to visit the office on 26.7.10 @ 10.00 am for inspection of records. The Applicant however filed an appeal dt.25.10.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that he had visited the office several times but was not allowed inspection despite reminders to GM(P). Shri R.P.Nibaria, Appellate Authority replied on 13.12.10 stating that that Applicant had been invited for inspection on 26.7.10 but never turned up. He, however, directed the PIO to allow inspection of the file after 15 days. The Applicant filed a second appeal dt.7.2.11 before CIC stating that no date had been given by the PIO for inspection despite AA's order.
CIC/AD/A/2011/000923
2. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.23.6.10 with the PIO, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur seeking the following documents:
i) Attested photocopy of the attendance register containing the attendance of the Applicant for the period 1.4.87 to 30.4.87.
ii) Attested photocopy of the attendance abstract of the Applicant for the period 16.3.87 to 15.4.87.
iii) Whether the Applicant was on duty at microwave Station Gorakhpur from 1.4.87 to 4.4.87. The PIO replied on 26.8.10 stating that information was already provided on 25.6.10. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.10.9.10 with the Appellate Authority. Shri R.P.Nibaria, Appellate Authority replied on 21.10.10 upholding the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.24.2.11 before CIC. CIC/AD/A/2011/000942
3. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.20.9.10 with the PIO, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur seeking the following documents:
i) Attested photocopy of the letter dt.26.2.10 vide which all his retirement dues and its related facilities had been withheld as mentioned in letter dt.23.7.10.
ii) Attested photocopy of complete Note sheet of File No...... of Feb.2010.
iii) Attested photocopy of the Railway Board letter dt.28.6.96 on the basis of which letter dt.26.2.10 was issued against the Applicant.
iv) Attested photocopy of the stay order dt.13.3.02 passed by High Court, Allahabad in Writ Petition No.19784/2002. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.9.11.10 with the Appellate Authority and still not receiving any reply, filed a second appeal dt.3.3.11 before CIC.
Decision CIC/AD/A/2011/000828
4. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that the Appellant had not approached the concerned officer when he went to inspect the file the first time. The person he approached , not being aware of the case had informed the Appellant that the concerned officer was not available. The Respondent further added that after the Order was passed by the Appellate Authority, it was noted that the concerned file was not traceable. When the Commission queried as to why the PIO had called the Appellant for inspection of records vide his letter dt.20.7.10 when the file was not traceable, the Respondents explained that some junior level officer who was not the custodian of the records had issued the letter. The Respondents added that the file is still not traceable and that a warning has been issued to the concerned dealing clerk. At this stage, the Appellant contended that he had seen the file on the table of one Shri A.K.Srivastava when he visited the office on 28.7.10 and that he was not allowed to inspect the same.
5. In view of the contention of the Appellant, the Commission under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, directs the PIO to conduct an enquiry into the whereabouts of the file and to fix the responsibility on the official who has last handled it and recommends that appropriate action be taken against the person found guilty of misplacing/losing the file. The enquiry should be completed and enquiry report along with information about the action taken on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry to be provided to the Appellant by 24 July, 2011. If file remains untraceable, the PIO is also directed to file an FIR with the police station and to provide a copy of the FIR to the Appellant by 24.7.11.
6. In the event the file is found the Appellant to be allowed to inspect the file and be provided with attested copies of documents identified by him, free of cost. The exercise to be completed by 24.7.11. If not traceable, CIC/AD/A/2011/000923
7. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that while he was provided with the abstract of attendance what he actually wants is the copy of the relevant pages from the attendance register signed by the employees. The Respondents however, expressed their inability to provide these pages since according to the schedule for preservation of records, the attendance registers are retained only for a period of three years. The attendance registers in the instant case are more than 20 years old.
8. The Commission accordingly holds that available information has been provided and accordingly closes the case at the Commission's end.
CIC/AD/A/2011/000942
9. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that complete information was provided on 11.11.10.
The Appellant, however, denied having received the same.
10. The PIO is therefore to send the information supplied on 11.11.10 once again to the Appellant by 24.7.11.
11. The appeals are disposed of with directions as given above.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Chandra Prakash S/o Late Lalta Prasad H.No.327 South to Shiv - Mandir Chauraha Nikah Ghar Road Mohalla - Chhota Quazipur Gorakhpur 273 001
2. The Public Information Officer North Eastern Railway O/o the General Manager Gorakhpur 273 012
3. The Appellate Authority North Eastern Railway O/o the General Manager Gorakhpur 273 012
4. Officer in charge, NIC