Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Northern Railway on 24 August, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/NRAIL/C/2017/310091
In the matter of:
Anil Kumar Gupta
...Complainant
VS
PIO,
Sr DCM
DRM Office, Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P- 226001
&
PIO,
Sr DCM
DRM Office, Northern Railway,
Pat Pat Sarai, Moradabad, U.P- 244001
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 14.07.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : Not on Record
FAA Order : Not on Record
Complaint : 27.09.2016
Date of hearing : 08.03.2018, 29.06.2018, 10.08.2018
Facts:
The complainant vide RTI application dated 14.07.2016 sought information regarding his complaint No. 007 dated 24.02.2016 asking the action taken on his complaint, names official addresses, E-mail Ids and official mobile numbers of the officials who have dealt with the complaint, certified copies of file notings pertaining to the complaint and steps taken to avoid recurrence of such complaints. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information Page 1 of 5 from the respondent authority, the complainant filed a complaint under the provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.09.2016.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Interim Order
Complainant : Representative of the complainant,
Shri Birender Yadav
Respondent : Shri Bankeylal,
Chief Office Superintendent, representative of PIO, Northern Railway During the hearing, the representative of respondent PIO, Lucknow submitted that PIO, Lucknow received the RTI application dated 14.07.2016 on 17.08.2016 and on the same day they had transferred the RTI application to Nodal CPIO, Moradabad division for providing the requisite reply. Since the copy of the said transfer letter was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
Representative of the complainant submitted that he had not received any reply and his IPO was rejected in the first instance.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the said transfer was done beyond the mandatory period of five days and that too it was not a proper transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act for which and for delaying the transfer the respondent PIO, Sr. DCM, Lucknow is held responsible. No reply was found on record and the matter at present rests with the PIO, Moradabad division for which show cause notices need to be issued to the respondent PIOs. In view of the above, Show Cause notices are issued to the respondent PIO, Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
Page 2 of 5(i) Why proper transfer was not done in time (PIO, Lucknow to explain) with relevant documentary proof;
(ii) Why relevant reply was not provided to the complainant in all these years(PIO, Moradabad to explain).
The explanations to the above stated Show Cause notices are to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent PIOs within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present PIOs, Lucknow and Moradabad are also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the names, addresses, mobile nos., present places of posting and designations of the PIOs working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent PIOs, Lucknow and Moradabad are to serve copies of this order to the then respondent PIOs under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation(s) to the said Show Cause notice(s), further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent PIOs should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation(s) within the time period stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent PIOs.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Interim Order : 29.06.2018
Respondent : Shri M.L Meena, Divisional
Commercial Manager cum CPIO
Smt. Anju Singh
Assistant Commercial Manager cum
APIO
The then Sr DCM, Lucknow and Nodal (PIO), Moradabad who were posted on 14.07.2016 to 27.09.2016 were not present despite notice. Hence, the Commission provides the Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad last opportunity to be present before the Commission on 10.08.2018 at 11.00 am before the Commission in person without fail.
Page 3 of 5The present Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad is strictly directed to ensure that the above mentioned officers are present before the Commission on the next date of hearing i.e. on 10.08.2018.
The case is adjourned.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties of the free of cost.
Interim Order : 10.08.2018
Respondent : Shri Ashish Jain
Director (Railway Stores)
The then Nodal PIO (Moradabad)
The then Sr DCM, Lucknow, Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha who is posted at present as Sr DOM, Lucknow expressed his inability to attend the Commission's hearing. He stated through his written submission that in the said case, the PIO who had been issued notice happens to be the then DCM/LKO/Shri M.L Meena. But in the reference letter CIC/NRAIL/C/2017/310091, the personal appearance had been ordered for the then Sr. DCM and PIO. This was one aspect that he wanted to bring up for the commission's notice. He further submitted that on 10.08.2018, a meeting was scheduled at LKO for the purpose of taking decision on Yard Remodelling Execution Plan of the LKO Yard as currently a large number of trains are getting detained at the approach of the LKO almost daily. This meeting, Officers from the Headquarters as well as from engineering streams were scheduled to attend. He, as Sr. DOM, being the nodal officer, had to be present in this important meeting.
On perusal of record, it was noted by the Commission that the Sr. DCM, Lucknow had transferred the said RTI application to the Sr DCM, Moradabad on 17.08.2016.
Shri Ashish Jain, the then Nodal PIO, Moradabad was present in person and submitted that he had not received the said RTI application.
In view of the above he was directed to submit an affidavit that he had not received the said RTI application.
Page 4 of 5The then Sr DCM, Moradabad posted in 17.08.2016 onwards is required to be present on the next date of hearing to explain as to why no requisite reply was provided to the said RTI application despite receiving the same u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The present Sr DCM, Moradabad is directed to ensure that the then Sr DCM, Moradabad posted in 17.08.2016 is invariably present on the next date of hearing.
The explanation(s) to the above stated show cause notice(s) is/are to be submitted to the Commission by the then Sr. DCM, Moradabad posted in 17.08.2016 within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present Sr. DCM, Moradabad is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the PIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent PIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent PIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The then respondent PIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
The case is adjourned.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar Page 5 of 5