Central Information Commission
Mr.Jayanti Lal Mistri vs Ministry Of Railways on 20 January, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000002
Date of Hearing : January 20, 2012
Date of Decision : January 20, 2012
Parties:
Applicant
Shri. Jayanti Lal V. Mistry
Near State Bank of India
Idar
Sabarkath
Gujrat
The Applicant was heard through audio
Respondents
North Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Jaipur Division
Jaipur
Represented by : None
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000002
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.13.8.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western Railway, Jaipur seeking information against seven points related to a complaint which he had lodged at Abu Road station on 7.4.10 (a copy of which was also sent to the office of DRM, Ajmer Division on 24.4.10 ) regarding the misbehaviour of TTTE with him, including information on action taken on the complaint and the reasons as to why seat was cancelled on their own when RAC means reservation against cancellation. On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.19.10.10 with the Appellate Authority. The PIO replied on 7.12.10 furnishing point wise information. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.Nil before CIC. Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the complaint about the misbehaviour of TTE was filed at Abu Road station falling under the jurisdiction of Ajmer Division. While explaining to the Commission the action taken on the complaint, the Respondent stated that since the complaint pertained to Jaipur Division, as the TTE belonged to that Division, it was forwarded to that Division. The statement of TTE was obtained and since in his statement, the TTE was unable to recall this particular incident involving the Appellant since most waitlisted passengers argue with TTEs when it comes to reservation against cancellation. The case against the TTE was therefore dropped. The Respondent however pointed out that the concerned official who was responsible for delayed response to the complaint was imposed minor penalty under DAR. The Respondent added that complete information pointwise has been furnished to the Appellant on 7.2.10 on transfer of the RTI application to their office. Some doubts raised by the Appellant, heard through audio conferencing, regarding RAC were also clarified by the Respondent during the hearing.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions by both sides directs the PIO to provide:
i) Copy of the statement given by the TTE/s during enquiry
ii) Copy of Decision taken by the competent authority based on the outcome of the enquiry .
iii) Further clarification with regard to RAC and waitlisted passengers as sought in point 3 , as available on record
iv) Copy of the order imposing minor penalty on the OS for the delayed reply to the complaint.
The information should reach the Appellant by 25.2.12.
4. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri. Jayanti Lal V. Mistry Near State Bank of India Idar Sabarkath Gujrat
2. The Public Information Officer North Western Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Jaipur Division Jaipur
3. Officer in charge, NIC