Central Information Commission
Ashwani Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 22 November, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/BJ/A/2016/000055-AB
In the matter of:
Ashwani Kumar
...Appellant
Vs.
Sr. AFA & CPIO/Traffic Accounts
Northern Railway,
Traffic Accounts Office, State Entry
Road, New Delhi - 110055.
&
Sh. Rahul Kapoor
Director Finance, PPP
(the then CPIO)/Traffic Accounts
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
&
CPIO/Acs & Dy. CAO/G, Northern Railway, Accounts
Department, head Quarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi - 110001.
&
Dy. GM(G)Northern Railway,
Head Quarter Office,
Baroda House, New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 18.09.2015
CPIO reply : 05.11.2015
First Appeal : 24.10.2015
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 05.03.2016
Date of hearing : 18.08.2017, 27.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 18.09.2015 sought certified copy of the action taken if any and report on its final outcome in regard to his petition 1 dated 03.07.2015. The appellant filed first appeal on 24.10.2015 on not receiving any reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time period. The PIO provided an interim reply on 05.11.2015. On being aggrieved, the appellant filed second appeal before this Commission on 05.03.2016. Grounds for second appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Present
1. Shri Rajendra Kumar, COS
PIOs representative, Northern Railway
Baroda House
2. Shri Rohtash Kumar, COS
PIOs representative, DRM office
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he did not receive any final reply from the respondent. The PIO's representative submitted a copy of the reply dated 27.11.2015. The Commission observes that the reply dated 27.11.2015 was also interim in nature like the reply dated 05.11.2015 received from the respondent. Hence there was no final reply received from the respondent.
The PIO's representative submitted that concerned PIO, FA & CAO was served the hearing notice but he was not present before the Commission during the hearing. As per the receipt and despatch register of the GM office, Northern Railway, the representation dated 03.07.2015 of the appellant was delivered to FA & CAO on 08.07.2015. In support of this they submitted a photocopy of the despatch register of the GM office. To the pointed question to the PIO's representative whether after the interim reply as to any final reply was provided to the appellant, the PIO's representative submitted that the responsibility to provide final reply lay on the shoulder of the FA & CAO, Northern railway, Baroda House.
2The Commission observes that despite an intimation from the office of GM, Northern railway to the FA & CAO for attending the Commission's hearing 18.08.2017, the FA & CAO chose to ignore such intimation. The PIO's representative also submitted that due to non-cooperation and non-provisioning of the requisite information, the office of GM was facing embarrassing situation before the Commission.
The action taken by FA & CAO and his unit is deplorable. The CPIO in the FA & CAO's office is squarely responsible for not providing the requisite information to the appellant. A show-cause notice is issued to both CPIO, FA & CAO's office and Dy GM(G) as to why final reply was not provided till date i.e. even after lapse of a period of 2 years to the appellant. The explanation to the above said show-cause notices should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case no explanation is received, the Commission has the option to take the required decision ex-parte without any further correspondence on this subject.
The present CPIOs i.e. Dy. GM (G) and FA & CAO shall serve this show- cause notices to the then PIOs i.e. the then Dy GM (G) and FA & CAO within 10 days of the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The present CPIO GM (G) and FA & CAO are required to submit names and present designations of the then PIOs i.e. the above stated PIOs working at the relevant posts in Sept 2015.
On perusal of record, the Commission is of the opinion that the RTI application was addressed to Dy. GM (G). Hence, he is responsible for providing the final reply to the appellant. It is also clear from perusal of records that no final reply was provided so far to the appellant. Hence the present Dy. GM (G) shall provide complete information within 21 days to the appellant after invoking Sec 5(4) of the RTI Act, if needed under intimation to the Commission.
3The Registry of this bench shall sent a copy of this order to Chairman Railway Board for information and appropriate action.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be provided to the parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 27.09.2018
Respondent : Samidha Singh, Dy CAO/G
Shri Baljeet Kundu, CPIO/G, NR
Show-cause notices were issued to both CPIO, FA & CAO's office and Dy. GM(G) to understand why final reply was not provided till date i.e. even after the lapse of a period of 2 years, to the appellant in the present case. The CPIO, FA & CAO's office and Dy GM(G) both were not present during the conduct of the show cause hearing at the Commission.
On query by the Commission, Shri Amit Goyal, CPIO, TA could not explain the reason for their absence. The Commission considers this as a case of wilful disregard of the Commission's order. However, written submissions were received from the present CPIOs.
Shri D.K Tuteja, Sr AFA/Traffic Accounts-cum CPIO/Traffic Accounts in his written submission submitted that a show-cause notice was issued to both CPIO, FA & CAO's office and Dy GM(G) as to why final reply was not provided till date i.e. even after lapse of a period of 2 years to the appellant. He submitted that the said order was received at the office of the CPIO/Traffic Accounts Office on 14-09-2017. The instant order was in regard to the RTI application of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, no. MGR/AKP/14311dated 18-09-2015 addressed to the Dy. GM/G-cum-CPIO/G, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. The Commission had observed that the reply provided to the appellant was interim in nature and that full and final information was never provided to him. The Commission had also observed that the action taken by the FA&CAO and his unit was deplorable and that the CPIO in the FA&CAO's 4 Office was squarely responsible for not providing the requisite information to the appellant. The CPIO in the FA&CAO's Office had been directed to submit explanation as to why final reply was not provided to the appellant till date. He had also been directed to serve the notice on the then CPIO of the FA&CAO's office within 10 days of receipt of the order and furnish the names and present designations of the responsible official(s) to the Commission.
He further submitted that the applicant had misled the Commission in the matter and that timely action had always been taken by the office of the FA&CAO and the unit in respect of the duty mandated under the RTI Act and that there had been no cause for serving the show cause notice on the then CPIO of FA&CAO's Office.
The sequence of events were submitted by him as under:
5.1. The appellant filed a representation/petition no. MGR/AKP/14221 dt. 03-
07-2015 and a copy of the same was marked to the General Manager/Northern Railway and the FA&CAO/Northern Railway. In his representation, the applicant had made wild allegations against a plethora of officials and his only plea was to direct the relevant officials to collect the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report from the Court/Police in a matter of a criminal case filed by Police against one Anil Kumar/Anil Rajpal, who happened to be a junior clerk in the FA & CAO's office and also to expedite the Departmental D&AR proceedings against this junior clerk, Sh. Anil Kumar. 5.1.1. As per available records with the Commission, it was observed that Dy. GM/G Office had transferred the copy of the letter dated 03.07.2015 to the then Dy. CAO/G's Office on 08-07-2015.
5.1.2. He submitted that the Dy. CAO/G, who had also received the FA&CAO's copy of the letter dated 03.07.2015, had transferred the same to the Dy.CAO/T's office vide letter no. 2010/PS/Dy. CAO/G/RTI dt. 20-07-2015 for further necessary action.
55.1.3. It was submitted that the then Dy. CAO/T-cum-CPIO/Traffic Accounts had advised (vide letter dt. 27-07-2015) the appellant that necessary action on the said FSL Report was to be taken by the Police Department in the criminal case against Sh. Rajpal under FIR no. 375/06. The appellant was, in regard to matters of his other representation for expediting the Departmental DA&R case against Sh. Rajpal, informed that the DA&R case inquiry report was under
examination of the competent disciplinary authority.
5.1.4 He submitted that with respect to the Commission's adverse observation regarding the office of the FA&CAO about not taking any action even though the letter no. 14221 dated 03.07.2015, was given by Dy. GM/G on 08-07-2015, it would be best to appreciate the fact that the said representation was not an RTI application filed under the RTI Act. It was a representation/petition made by him to the railway authorities. The appellant was still informed about the status of his case in time. It is also placed on record that the departmental disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Railway Servants Disciplinary & Appeal Rules (D&AR) which are framed by the Department of Personnel/Ministry of Railways to undertake disciplinary action against an employee while upholding the principle of natural justice as expressly enshrined in the Constitution of India. He submitted that the RTI Act is not the forum to give causative directions to ignore the Constitutional provisions and the required procedure thereof in matters such as departmental DA&R cases. 5.2. The appellant made two separate RTI applications with respect to his petition/representation no. 14221:
(a) MGR/AKP/14323 dt. 12-09-2015 (hereinafter referred as no. 14323) addressed to Dy. CAO/G-cum-CPIO/Accounts - Annexure IV - seeking "the certified copy of the action taken if any and its final outcome report vide his petition no. MGR/AKP/14221 dt. 03-07- 2015 addressed to CRB and marked to FA&CAO/NR/BH/ND.6
(b) MGR/AKP/14311 dt. 18-09-2015 (hereinafter referred as no. 14311) addressed to Dy. GM/G-cum-CPlO/G - Annexure V - seeking "the certified copy of the action taken if any and its final outcome report vide his petition no. MGR/AKP/14221 dt. 03-07-2015 addressed to CRB and marked to GM/NR/BH/ND.
5.2.1. He submitted that the Commission may note that RTI applications nos. 14323 and 14311 were seeking the same information and that the Hon'ble Commission's instant order pertained to the RTI application no. 14311. Since the DA&R proceeding against Sh. Anil Kumar Rajpal was pending in the Traffic Accounts, Office of the Northern Railway, information was to go from the same office.
5.2.2. That the RTI application no. 14323 was transferred to the Dy.CAO/G- cum-CPIO/Traffic Accounts by the then Dy. CAO/G-cum-CPIO/Accounts vide 2015/RTI(A/cs)/C/226 dt. 18-09- 2015 - Annexure Vl. The same was received at the Traffic Accounts' Office on 28-09-2015.
(a) Dy. CAO/T-cum-CPIO/Traffic Accounts replied vide 2014 / TA / NDLS/ Adm.I/ Complaint/AK/Pt. I dt. 01-10-2015 - Annexure VII - to the appellant (in response to four of his applications/representations/petitions including that having no.14221 discussed in paragraph 5.1 hereinabove) by virtue of which Sh. Anil Kumar Rajpal was imposed the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 26-08-2015 by the Competent Authority.
(b) In response to the RTI application no. 14323, the appellant was provided due reply by the Dy. CAO/T-cum-CPIO/Traffic Accounts vide letter no. 2014/TA/NDLS/ Adm.I/ Complaint/AK/pt. I dt. 05-10- 2015 -
Annexure VIII - (certified copies of the action taken by the Traffic Accounts office along with the notings given on file in matters of his petition no. 14221).
75.2.3. He submitted before the Commission that with action as stated at paragraph 5.2.2, the information sought by the appellant vide his application no. 14323 was given to him in timely, full and final manner. It is reiterated that this is also the information that the appellant had sought vide his application no. 14311, which is the basis for the instant order by the Hon'ble Commission. 5.2.4. It is further submitted that the appellant was in knowledge that full and final information that he had sought vide RTI application no. 14311 when he made a First Appeal to SDGM-cum-FAA/G on 24-10-2015 - Annexure IX was already provided to him. Further, it was informed to him by Dy. Secy/GM vide 33-G/Misc./R&D/RTI/2015. 05-11-2015 - Annexure X that the General Manager's copy of his representation no.14221was delivered to the office of the FA&CAO on 08-07-2015 and that he should directly correspond with that office for eliciting information on the subject matter. It may kindly be noted that the appellant was already in direct correspondence with the office of the FA&CAO through RTI application no. 14221 and RTI application no. 14323. It may also be noted that he was already furnished full and final information as a result of such correspondences.
5.2.5. He also submitted that the Dy. Secy/GM vide no. 33- G/Misc./R&D/RTI/2015 dt. 27-11-2015 - Annexure Xl had further advised the appellant in response to his First Appeal in case no. 14311 that "the information /contents of the RTI application pertains to Accounts Department and thus the appellant should make direct correspondence with CPIO/Accounts." 5.2.6. He submitted before the Commission that it is a trite law that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. As per the Doctrine of Unclean Hands, he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. What is important to be seen is that the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought. The Hon'ble supreme court in Arunimo Baruoh v. union of India, reported at (2007) 6 SCC 120, has explained this doctrine at length. The Courts, 8 by applying this doctrine, make sure that such unscrupulous Litigants are not able to abuse the process of the courts.
6.2. In the instant case, the appellant had withheld information from the Hon'ble Commission that he was having full and final information on the subject through another RTI application (no. 14323) while approaching it for the same information through a second Appeal in regard to the RTI application no. 14311. It is submitted with humility that the appellant had not approached the Hon'ble Commission with his hands clean and has misled it. Our explanation may be considered kindly and the appellant may be directed not to abuse the process of an honourable Act such as the RTI Act.
6.3. He further submitted that the then CPIO/Traffic Accounts, Sh. Rahul Kapoor (currently Director Finance, PPP, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi) had shown due respect to the process of right to information and had acted timely to give full and final information to the appellant. There is no ground for serving the show cause notice of the Hon'ble commission on him. He pleaded that the Commission may consider withdrawing its order to serve the show cause notice on him. 6.4. It is clear that the office of the FA&CAO and his units had acted to respect the RTI Act. The adverse remarks passed by the Commission may be expunged. Explanation from Smt. Samidha Singh, Dy. CAO/G cum CPIO/Acs:-
She submitted that as per record available in this office it has been noted that the matter of RTI Application No. MGR/AKP/14311 dated 18.09.2015 of Sh. Ashwani Kumar was addressed to "Dy.GM/G cum CPIO/G" and the matter was dealt by O/o Dy. Secy./GM.
The sequence of events were submitted by her as under:
1. A reply vide Dy. Secy./GM's L. no. 33/G/Misc./R&D/RTI/2015 dated 05.11.2015 was provided to the applicant. However a copy was marked to the then FA & CAO/NR/BH but the same was not received at their office.9
2. The reply dated 05.11.2015 of the Dy. Secy./GM was not received at the O/o FA& CAO/NR. However the RTI application no. MGR/AKP/14311 dated 18.09.2015 was not transferred to the CPIO(A/cs), Accounts office under relevant provision of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing requisite information to the applicant at that time.
3. The 1st Appeal no. MGR/AKP/14,678 dated 24.10.2015 (addressed to the SDGM cum FAA) submitted by Sh. Ashwani Kumar in the RTI application no.
MGR/AKP/14311 dated 18.09.2015 (addressed to the Dy. GM/G cum CPIO/G) was received at the O/o Dy. Secy./GM and the appeal was disposed of vide Dy. Secy./GM's order No. 33-G/Misc/R&D/RTI/2015 dated 27.11.2015. (Annexure-R1).
4. It is clear that RTI application no. MGR/AKP/14311 dated 18.09.2015 (addressed to the Dy. GM/G cum CPIO/G) and the 1st appeal submitted vide letter no. No. MGR/AKP/14,678 dated 24.10.2015 (addressed to the SDGM cum FAA) was dealt at the O/o Dy. Secy./GM and not in the Accounts Office i.e. O/o FA & CAO/NR/BH.
5. The order passed by the Dy. Secy/GM vide order dated 27.11.2015 in the 1st appeal dated 24.10.2015 was received at the O/o FA & CAO/NR/BH along- with some other documents i.e. RTI application dated 18.09.2015, First appeal dated 24.10.2015, reply dated 05.11.2015 etc., for the first time on 01.12.2015 i.e. after expiry of the prescribed time period as per the provision of the RTI Act.
6. No direction was issued to the CPIO (A/cs.) or to the O/o FA & CAO/NR/BH which was to be complied with by the CPIO (A/cs.).
7. It is brought to the notice that the CIC notice for hearing on 18.08.2017 was transferred to their office despite the fact that RTI application dated 18.09.2015 was never transferred to their office.
8. It is particularly brought to notice of the Commission that the applicant Sh. Ashwani Kumar vide RTI application no. MGR/KP/14323 dated 12.09.2015 10 had sought similar/identical information from the then Dy. CAO/G cum CPIO/Acs a number of times in the past also.
9. The RTI application dated 12.09.2015 was transferred to the Dy. CAO/T-cum-CPIO(TA) u/s 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 for providing information to Sh. Ashwani Kumar, the appellant.
10. The then Dy. CAO/T-cum CPIO (TA) vide RTI reply/letter no. 2014/TA/NDLS/Admn.I/Complaint/A.K./Pt.I, dated 05.10.2015 provided the requisite information to the applicant.
11. It is brought to the notice of the Commission that the applicant vide RTI application dated 18.09.2015 addressed to the Dy. GM/G-cum-CPIO(G) and the RTI application dated 12.09.2015 had sought identical information from the O/o Dy. GM (G) and Dy. CAO (G) respectively.
12. Sh. Ashwani Kumar, the appellant was already provided with information vide letter no. 2014/TA/NDLS/Admn.I/Compliant/A.K./Pt.I, dated 05.10.2015 by Dy. CAO/T-cum-CPIO (TA). The appellant however concealed this fact from the Commission while submitting 2nd appeal before the Commission.
13. The appellant had sought for same/identical information from two different Public Authorities i.e. from the O/o Dy. GM(G) and the Dy. CAO (G) and information relating to the offices of Dy. GM/G and Dy. CAO/G was provided to the applicant vide reply dated 05.11.2015 (from Dy. Secy./GM) and dated 05.10.2015 (from Dy. CAO/TA) respectively. Hence any appeal filed in the matter is not tenable.
14. Despite the fact as mentioned above, Show cause notice issued vide file No. CIC/BJ/A/2016/000055-AB was served upon Dy. CAO/T cum PIO/T as the order passed by the then Dy. Secy./GM dated 27.11.2015 in the 1st appeal dated 24.10.2015 was received at the O/o FA & CAO/NR/BH along-with some other documents i.e. RTI application dated 18.09.2015, first appeal dated 24.10.2015, reply dated 05.11.2015 etc. for the first time on 01.12.2015. This was 11 transferred to the Dy. CAO/TA-cum-CPIO(A/cs.) vide this office letter dated 04.12.2015. The same was returned by TA office vide Sr. AFA/ADM/TA's letter no. 2015/TA/NDLS/Admn./Legal/RTI/A.K. dated 07.03.2016 on the ground that the RTI application no. MGR/AKP/14311 dated 18.09.2015 was not received at their office.
15. This fact was also brought to notice of the Dy. GM/G. The reply of the Accounts Dept was submitted to the Dy. Secy./GM much before the date of hearing before the Commission on 18.08.2017. Therefore, the submission of the PIO's representative during the hearing that the responsibility to provide final reply lay on the shoulder of the FA&CAO, Northern Railway, Baroda House is not sustainable, more so when the said RTI application had not been transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Accounts Department.
16. She submitted that notice issued by CIC for hearing in the matter was sent to the O/o Dy. CAO/T-cum-CPIO (TA) but none could be present before the Commission as the said RTI application was not dealt with in the Account Office and the representative of the NR present on 18.08.2017 did not clarify the fact and circumstance of the case and wrongly quoted that information was to be provided by the Accounts office.
Decision:
Based on the explanation, the Commission observed that Shri D.K Tuteja, Sr AFA/Traffic Accounts-cum CPIO/Traffic Accounts' plea was that the 1st appeal submitted by the appellant Sh. Ashwani Kumar for non-receipt of the requisite reply in regard to the RTI application no. MGR/AKP/14311 dated 18.09.2015 was not tenable under law as the material fact of submitting identical RTI applications to different public authorities had been concealed in the appeal by the appellant concerned.
The Commission is of the opinion that as the RTI application was addressed to Dy. GM(G) and Dy. Secy./GM, he was obligated to furnish reply within 30 12 days of its receipt to the appellant. The issue of identical RTI or repeated RTI cannot be a ground for not providing any reply to the instant RTI application. The CPIO should have provided reply giving reference of the earlier RTI applications. However, the then Dy. GM(G) and Dy. Secy./GM is seen to be responsible for not providing any final reply to the abovestated RTI application. Moreover, the Sr. AFA has no locus standi to submit before the Commission any explanation regarding the showcause notices which were issued to the then CPIO, FA & CAO's office and Dy GM(G). It appears from his submission that he misinterpreted the Commission's order dated 18.09.2017 for reasons best known to him. The showcause notice was issued for the simple reason that no final reply was provided to the appellant in respect of his RTI application dated 18.09.2015. The reply on the representation dated 03.07.2015 cannot be considered as a reply to the RTI application dated 18.09.2015. He further submitted that the then CPIO/Traffic Accounts, Sh. Rahul Kapoor (currently Director Finance, PPP, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi) had shown due respect to the process of right to information and had acted timely to give full and final information to the appellant and hence there was no ground for serving the show cause notice of the Hon'ble commission on him. He pleaded that the Commission may consider withdrawing its order to serve the show cause notice on him.
The Commission observed that prima facie it is proved beyond doubt that Shri D.K Tuteja, Sr AFA/Traffic Accounts-cum CPIO/Traffic Accounts had deliberately not served the showcause notice on the then CPIO, which amounts to defiance of the Commission's order. It is also to be mentioned that the Commission had never passed any direction ignoring the Constitutional provisions and the required procedure in the matter of conduct of departmental DA & R cases. He was not the competent authority to decide whether or not the show cause notice was to be served on CPIO, FA & CAO's office and Dy GM(G). The Commission is surprised at this attitude of Sr AFA/Traffic 13 Accounts-cum CPIO/Traffic Accounts for defying the order of the Commission. It showed an unhelpful mindset of the concerned CPIO. Moreover, his explanation is not accepted as he was not directed to file any submission before the Commission.
The Commission hereby imposes penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri D.K Tuteja, Sr AFA/Traffic Accounts-cum CPIO/Traffic Accounts for not complying with the Commission's directions thereby causing obstruction of information. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs 10,000/- in 5 equal monthly instalments. The Additional General Manager, Northern Railway is directed to recover the amount of Rs 10,000/- from the salary payable to Shri D.K Tuteja, Sr AFA/Traffic Accounts-cum CPIO/Traffic Accounts and remit the same by way of demand drafts drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 20.12.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 20.04.2019. The Demand Drafts should be sent to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e- mail;[email protected] Room no. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the Additional General Manager, Northern Railway for compliance of this order.
The Additional General Manager, Northern Railway is directed to take action as per the above direction and submit an action taken report within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
A copy of this order is to be sent to the General Manager, Northern Railway for information and appropriate action.
The then respondent CPIO,Dy GM (G) and Dy. Secy./GM who was posted on 18.09.2015 is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an 14 RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
The present Dy CAO(G) shall serve the copy of this warning to the then DY GM(G) and Dy. Secy./GM It was also noted that till date no final reply was provided to the appellant after the Commission's order dated 18.08.2017. For which the present Dy GM(G) is held responsible.
The Commission hereby imposes token penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the present Dy GM(G) for not complying with the Commission's directions thereby causing obstruction of information to the appellant. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- in 2 equal monthly instalments. The Additional General Manager, Northern Railway is directed to recover the amount of Rs 5,000/- from the salary payable to present Dy GM(G) and remit the same by way of demand drafts drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 2 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 20.12.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 20.01.2019. The Demand Drafts should be sent to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e-mail;[email protected] Room no. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the Additional General Manager, Northern Railway for compliance of this order. The Additional General Manager, Northern Railway is directed to take action as per the above direction and submit an action taken report within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
15A copy of this order be sent to the General Manager, Northern Railway for information and appropriate action.
With the above warning, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order are to be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ भ 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:
i)Additional General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi- 110001
ii)General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
iii) Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e-mail;[email protected] Room no. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 16