Central Information Commission
Mr.Asita Kumar Nayak vs Ministry Of Railways on 14 November, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002043
Date of Hearing : November 14, 2011
Date of Decision : November 14, 2011
Parties: (heard through video conference)
Appellant
Shri Asita Kumar Nayak
c/o Durjyodhan Pasayat
At Majhi Sahi Jobra
PO College Square, Cuttack
Oidsha
PIN 753 003
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
East Coast Railway
Khurda Road Division
Odisha
Represented by: Shri LVSS Patrudu, PIO and Shri Tapos Lahiri, APIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002043
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 10.03.2011) with the PIO, East Coast Railway, Khurda Division seeking certain information about the abstract muster roll (with effect from 11.01.2011 to 10.02.2011) which, according to him, was forwarded by ADSTE/CTC for drawl of salary. The PIO on 13.04.2011 furnished pointwise information to the Applicant. The Applicant, however, being dissatisfied with the PIO's reply, filed his first appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA) on 13.05.2011 alleging that the information supplied by the PIO is misleading. The AA, in response, on 26.07.2011 provided to the Appellant information relating to item 5 i.e. a copy of pay slip for Feb, 2011. He (AA), however, endorsed the PIO's view in respect of the other items. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition dated 08.08.2011 before the Commission requesting that "a genuine abstract copy of the muster roll w.e.f. 11.01.2011 to 10.02.2011 and other information" be directed to be provided to him. He also demanded that penal action be initiated against the PIO for giving false documents.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant alleged that the document (i.e abstract muster roll) supplied by the Respondents is "not genuine" since it does not carry his signature. He (Appellant) asserted that it was he who had signed this very document and had submitted to the public authority and that, therefore, he is very well aware of the quality and nature of this document. The Respondents, however, refused to accept the Appellant's version and stated that the above document was prepared and signed by the ADSTE, Cuttack and was sent to them for further action and that the document they had furnished to the Appellant therefore is a genuine document .
3. In view of the disagreement above, it is directed that the originator of the present information viz., ADSTE, Cuttack shall file an affidavit before the Commission--with a copy to the Appellant-- affirming the fact that it was he who had prepared the above mentioned document and had forwarded it to the Respondents under his signature. He shall submit this affidavit to the Commission, with a copy to the Appellant, through the PIO by 12.12.2011.
4. The PIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the ADSTE, Cuttack for him to comply with the above directions.
5. The appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Asita Kumar Nayak c/o Durjyodhan Pasayat At Majhi Sahi Jobra PO College Square, Cuttack Oidsha PIN 753 003
2. The Appellate Authority & ADRM East Coast Railway Khurda Road Division PO Jatni, Disst. Khurda Odisha
3. Public Information Officer & East Coast Railway Khurda Road Division PO Jatni, Disst. Khurda Odisha
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.