Central Information Commission
Mr.Ajay B Bose vs Ministry Of Railways on 10 February, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001705
Date of Hearing : February 10, 2011
Date of Decision : February 10, 2011
Heard through Video Conferencing
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Ajay B Bose
Central Railway, Flat No. 51/4, Agarwad
Near Sion Hospital
Sion West
Mumbai - 400022.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Commercial Branch
CST, Mumbai.
Respondent was not present.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001705
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 9.4.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, DRM's Office, Central Railway, Mumbai seeking information regarding his the promotion which was denied to him. The DPO/APIO Personnel branch, Mumbai replied on 4.6.2010 providing point wise information and also informing the Applicant that there is no free period of punishment to get the promotion and on completion of all the penalties, he will be considered for promotion as per rule. He also provided the following information.
a) With holding of increment for a period of three years (NC) vide letter dated 16.10.2008
b) With holding of increment for a period of one year (NC) dated 1.7.2009.
c) With holding of increment for a period of Six month (NC)m vide letter dated 23.2.2010.
Not satisfied with this reply the Applicant filed his first appeal on 8.7.2010 stating that he was misinformed that there was a penalty pending against him the day he was due for promotion ie. on 14.2.08 . His contention was that even if there were a penalty pending against any employee his name should be included in the promotion list after passing suitable remarks against his name . He also pointed out that as per extant rules even if there is a minor penalty he should be promoted to next grade with punishment made to be effect in the promotion grade. The Appellate Authority replied on 26.8.2010 informing the Applicant that he was due for promotion as Sr BC on par with his junior promoted on 14.2.2008 but could not be considered for promotion due to pendency of Major Penalty charge sheet issued vide letter No. BB.C.CON. 48.07.22 dated 31.7.2007 which resulted in the withholding of his increment for two years (NC) vide letter No. BB/P/DAR/MIN/171/08 dated 16.10.2008. Still not satisfied the Applicant filed his second appeal before the Commission stating that the PIO and the Appellate Authority had given him contradictory replies. He also stated that they had failed to answer why his name was missing from the list of promotees dated 14.2.2008. Decision
2. During the hearing the Appellant contended once again that there is a contradiction in the replies furnished by the PIO and Appellate Authority with respect to the reasons for non inclusion of his name in the promotion list. The Commission therefore directs the PIO to clarify whether or not there is any contradiction in the replies furnished to the Appellant by the PIO and AA. The Appellant may also be provided with the correct information and also allowed to inspect the relevant records/files dealing with the subject of his promotion. The Appellant may then be provided with attested copies of documents/file notings required by him in this regard.
3. The Appellant at this stage stated that the answer provided by the PIO to his point no.1 of the RTI Application is incorrect. His averred with regard to point 1 that he was transferred to C.Rly from W.Rly on own request and posted as Jr. Booking clerk although he was working as Sr. Booking clerk and that as per extant rules he should have been posted as Sr. Booking clerk on bottom seniority and sought the rule under which he was transferred. The PIO to provide further information , if available, in this regard to the Appellant along with copies of supporting documents . The Appellant may be allowed to inspect the relevant file dealing with his transfer on own request and be provided with the copies of all the required documents. The Appellant also pointed out that although the PIO replied on 4.6.2010 he had received the reply at his place on 13.7.2010 thereby contending that the reply was deliberately backdated by the PIO. The PIO is therefore directed to furnish all the dispatch details of his reply to the Appellant with a copy to the Commission in order to prove that the reply was indeed not backdated. All information to be provided by 20.3.2011.
3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Ajay B Bose Central Railway, Flat No. 51/4, Agarwad Near Sion Hospital Sion West Mumbai - 400022.
2. The Public Information Officer Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch CST, Mumbai.
3. The Appellate Authority Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch CST, Mumbai.
4. Officer Incharge, INC