Central Information Commission
Seema Singh vs Northern Railway on 1 November, 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/NRAIL/A/2017/312672
In the matter of:
Seema Singh
...Appellant
VS
Dr. Jyotsna Chopta
Addl. Chief Medical Supdt(OPD)
Northern Railway, Divisional
Hospital, Lucknow - 226002.
&
PIO/Sr. Divl. Medical Officer
Northern Railway, Divisional
Hospital, Lucknow - 226002.
&
PIO/Sr. Divl. Medical Officer,
Northern Railway, Divisional
Hospital, Faizabad. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 11.04.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 10.06.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 05.10.2016
Date of hearing : 09.02.2018, 09.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 11.04.2016 sought copy of the rule on the basis of which medical pass nos. 637502 and 645749 were issued. 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 under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 05.10.2016. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1
Order
Appellant : Representative,
Shri Krishan Kumar
Respondent : Dr. Pratibha Thakur cum CPIO,
Divisional Medical Officer,
Northern Railway, Lucknow
During the hearing, the respondent CPIO, Lucknow submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 11.04.2016 from the office of the DMO, Northern Railway, Faizabad on 6.05.16 and they had sent the same to the Sr. DMO, Faizabad on 04.07.2016 as it did not pertain to Lucknow division of the railways.
The representative of the appellant submitted that he had not received any reply from the respondent authority concerned.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that it was an administrative transfer and that the respondent CPIO had not provided any reply to the appellant in the present case. Hence show cause notices need to be issued to both the then PIO and Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Faizabad and the then PIO and Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Lucknow.
In view of the above, Show Cause notices are issued to the then PIO and Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Faizabad, and the then PIO and Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Lucknow u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
(i) Why the said RTI application was transferred after two years; and
(ii) Why no reply was provided to the appellant in all these years. The respondent PIO should have known that if any RTI application does not pertain to him, he should either have transferred the same u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the PIO/CPIO holding the relevant information within a period of 5 days of the receipt of the said RTI application or in case the said time limit was over, he should have provided the requisite information to the appellant after taking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned CPIO/PIO holding such 2 information. Neither of the above stated procedure was adopted by the above stated PIOs in the present case.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notices are to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present CPIO/PIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the names, addresses, mobile nos., present places of posting and designations of the CPIOs/PIOs working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent CPIO/PIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIOs/PIOs under intimation to the Commission. On the receipt of the above said explanations to the said Show Cause notices, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The concerned respondent CPIOs/PIOs should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation(s) within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the then respondent CPIOs/PIOs concerned.
The respondent further submitted during the hearing that all the sought for information was ready with her.
Be that as it may, as no reply was provided to the information seeker so far, the present respondent CPIO/PIO is directed to provide the sought for information subject to the invoking of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent CPIO is also directed to follow invariably the stipulated procedure prescribed u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act before parting with the sought for information related to the third party. In case the third party objects, the same is to be intimated to the appellant concerned within 03 days of the receipt of the reply of the third party concerned in the present case.
With the above 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 : Dr. Jyotsna Chopra,
Addl. Chief Medical Supdt
(OPD) Lucknow
3
Dr. Jyotsna Chopra, Addl. Chief Medical Supdt (OPD), the then PIO (Medical) Lucknow submitted the following explanation:
1. Why the said application was transferred after two years?
The RTI application dated 11.04.2016 was received at the office of the CMS/NR/Lucknow on 06.05.2016. The application was put up to her (the then PIO/Medical) on 04.07.2016. Since the information pertained to the office of Sr. DMO/Faizabad, the application was transferred to that officer on 04.07.2016 for supplying information to the applicant directly.
A.) There was a delay (of two months and not two years) in transferring the application to the Sr. DMO/Faizabad due to the reasons beyond her control (the then PIO/Medical/Lucknow).
B.) a. The work of PIO/Medical was delegated to her by CMS/Lucknow on 18.08.2015.
b. After taking over the duties of PIO/Medical, it was noticed that there was delay in processing of RTI cases by the dealing staff in the CMS office. This was brought to the notice of the then CMS and Addl. Chief Med Supdt. (Admin) for taking corrective action. The CMS was informed by her in writing as well on 21.12.2015.
c. Chief Office Supdt and dealing clerk were once again directed by her on 23.05.2016 to process RTI cases at the earliest.
d. With the intention of speeding up the work of RTI, a letter was again sent by her to the Chief Office Supdt/Medical on 15.10.2016. It is clearly evident from the facts given hereinabove, that she while working as PIO had tried earnestly to improve RTI related work. However, the delay in this case was due to administrative laxity in the CMS office. It is pertinent to mention here that the office staff was under the administrative control of the CMS and Addl. Chief Med. Supdt(Admn).
4C.) In the 2nd Para of CIC order CIC/NRAIL/A/2017/312672 dated 26.02.2018, it is mentioned that the representative of the appellant submitted that he had not received any reply from the respondent authority concerned.
It is informed that the letter dated 04.07.2016 was sent to the applicant, Ms. Seema Singh By post as per record available in the CMS office, Lucknow.
2. Why no reply was provided to the appellant in all these years?
The RTI application was transferred to the then Sr. DMO/Faizabad for supplying the requisite information to the applicant directly.
The appeals dated 10.06.2016 and 05.10.2016 had neither been received in the office of CMS Lucknow nor in the office of the then First Appellate Authority (addl. Divl. Rly. Manager, Lucknow) As no appeal was received it was presumed that the applicant had received the reply from the then Sr. DMO Faizabad. However, at any time, there was no intention to withhold the information from the appellant by her.
That her basic job is of a clinician. She is working in a hospital that caters to approx. 40000 railway employees and their family members. She was working as in charge of OPD and also attending to 100 patients per day in the OPD. Even after that, she had put in all efforts to streamline the work of RTI.
1. Details of the Pass no. 637502 & 645749 were already available with applicant, since they were issued to the husband of the applicant.
2. The rule regarding the issue of medical passes to railway employees is already available in the public domain (Indian Railway Pass Rules).
3. The employee Sh. R P Singh (husband of the applicant) in his income declaration for obtaining Medical Pass has mentioned-
a. Salary - Rs. 13330 in May 2014 (Annex 9)
b. Salary -Rs. 11340 in Dec. 2015 (Annex 10)
The salary mentioned in 2014 is approx. Rs. 2000 more than that in 2015. It appears that the employee himself is not giving correct information for availing Medical Pass which is unbecoming of a railway servant.
5She summed up her statement by stating that there had been no wilful delay in this case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, she requested that the action against her (the then PIO medical/Lucknow) under Section 20 of the RTI Act be dropped.
Dr Pratibha Thakur, the present CPIO/Medical submitted that in compliance of CIC order dated 09.02.2018, she provided the necessary reply on 05.03.2018 to the appellant.
Decision:
Dr Jyotsna, the then PIO had explained justifiably that the RTI application was transferred after two months and not two years. In respect of point no. 2, she had cited reason that due to non receipt of first appeal she presumed that the RTI was replied by Sr. DMO Faizabad.
The Commission observed that the transfer of the said RTI application to the then PIO, Faizabad was not proper, as the information sought was within the reach of PIO (Medical) Lucknow as evident from the reply dated 05.03.2018. Moreover, the Sr DMO Faizabad was not present for the showcause hearing despite receiving the hearing notice on 04.10.2018 by speed post tracking no. ED886676486IN.
It also transpires from Dr Jyotsna explanation that the CMS/Lucknow had been turning a deaf ear to her several letters regarding mismanagement of RTI cases. The Commission is afraid that the lack of coordination and lack of supervision in the Medical Department, Lucknow, Northern Railway resulted in irreparable damage to the RTI applicants to which the CMS, Lucknow is equally responsible.
The present Sr. DMO, Faizabad and the then Sr DMO Faizabad also are responsible for not following the RTI Act mandate.
The DRM, Lucknow, Northern Railway is advised u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to take immediate steps to ensure that proper infrastructure and manpower is made available to the PIO(Medical) for dealing with RTI applications.6
A copy of this order is sent to General Manager, Northern Railway for taking immediate action.
Be that as it may it is established that there was delay from 04.07.2016 to 05.03.2018 and the transfer letter was not in accordance with the u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. Hence, Dr Jyotsna Chopra is responsible. She is issued a strict warning for not taking steps for providing proper reply to the applicant within the stipulated time period and for not transferring the said RTI application to the then PIO, Faizabad u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The present Sr. DMO, Faizabad and the then Sr. DMO Faizabad are also issued warning for not attending Commission's hearing and for not replying to the letter dated 04.07.2016. A copy of this warning shall be served (with proper acknowledgment) by the present PIO Medical, Lucknow to them.
With the above order, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order be sent to all the concerned 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
Copy to:
1. DRM, Lucknow, Northern Railway, 11, Northern Railway Building, Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Mahatama Gandhi Marg, Near LIC Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001
2. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
7