Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Waman P Hangarge vs Central Railway on 26 November, 2021

                                                          CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359
                                    के ीय सचू ना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मिु नरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359
In the matter of:
Waman P Hangarge                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                       VERSUS
                                         बनाम
1. CPIO,                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Chief Personnel Officer, Central
Railway (HQ), O/o the General
Manager, RTI Cell, CSMT,
Mumbai-400001

 2. CPIO,
/Asst. Personnel Officer,
Central Railway, DRM's Office,
Personnel Branch,
Solapur Division, Solapur,
Maharashtra-413001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI Application filed on                    :   06.08.2019
CPIO replied on                             :   18.09.2019
First Appeal filed on                       :   18.09.2019
First Appellate Authority order             :   05.11.2019
Second Appeal received on                   :   08.01.2020
Date of Hearing                             :   24.11.2021

The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Waman P Hangarge, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Latur.



                                                                            Page 1 of 7
                                                     CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359

Respondent: Shri Ramesh Iyer, Sr. DPO and PIO, on behalf of Respondent No. 2
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Solapur.
No one appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1, despite being served the hearing
notice.
                                   ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed RTI Application dated 06.08.2019 seeking information on the following six points:
Page 2 of 7
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359 The CPIO vide letter dated 18.09.2019, informed the Appellant as under:
Page 3 of 7
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.11.2019, enclosed a note given by the APIO (P)/SUR, Central Railway, Solapur dated 04.11.2019 wherein the Appellant has been informed as under:
"The RTI application of Shri Warman P. Hangarge dated 06.08.2019 was replied vide this office Lr No. SUR/P/Admn/RTI/WPH dated 18.09.2019 where in copy of Roster of S&WI was enclosed.
Once again copy of roster of S&WI of SUR div. is enclosed. Further the copy rule for preparing roster containing 7 pages is also enclosed."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to immediate hearing may please be conducted.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that the Respondent has provided wrong and misleading information to his RTI Application. He further asserted he want copy of rule qua which multiple roaster has been made in one cadre. Upon being queried by the Commission whether the Appellant was working in the Railways, he replied in affirmative and further alleged that his promotion was delayed and he was compelled to resign from the office by the Respondent Public Authority.
The Respondent submitted that they have given copy of all the roasters as sought in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant. He further offered an opportunity Page 4 of 7 CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359 for inspection of the relevant records which has been rejected by the Appellant. He further submitted that there is no such rule in black and white for maintaining multiple roaster.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri G.P. Bhagat, Sr. DPO/PIO, Solapur, vide letter dated 17.11.2021 and the same has been marked to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though an adequate reply was provided by the Respondent, the Appellant is contesting on the veracity of the same. The Commission also observes that the Respondent No. 2 has orally averred that there is no such rule exists in black and white for maintaining multiple roaster. In order to allay the apprehension of the Appellant, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Respondent No. 2 to file an appropriate affidavit, stating the factum that no such rule exists in black and white for maintaining multiple roaster. The said affidavit shall be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 5 of 7
CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359 Notwithstanding the above, the Commission further observes that the Respondent No. 1 has not appeared before the Commission. In fact, the Respondent No. 1 has not even bothered to intimate the Commission regarding the reason for his non- appearance. In view of the above, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO representing Respondent No. 1 during the hearing despite being served the hearing notice and accordingly the Commission directs the present CPIO of Respondent No. 1 to furnish a written explanation regarding non- appearance before the Commission. In addition, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to the present CPIO of Respondent No. 1 seeking explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him/her.
A copy of this order is marked to FAA to ensure that a copy of this order is received by the present CPIO of Respondent No. 1. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove(अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner(सचू ना आयु ) ं / Date: 25.11.2021 िदनाक Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26105027 Page 6 of 7 CIC/CRAIL/A/2020/101359 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) / Additional General Manager Central Railway General Manager's Office Mumbai CST-400001
2. The Central Public Information Officer /Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railway (HQ), O/o the General Manager, RTI Cell, CSMT, Mumbai-400001
3. The Central Public Information Officer /Asst. Personnel Officer, Central Railway, DRM's Office, Personnel Branch, Solapur Division, Solapur, Maharashtra-413001
4. Mr. Waman P Hangarge Copy to:
First Appellate Authority, Additional General Manager, Central Railway General Manager's office, Mumbai, CST-400001.
(For compliance of the aforesaid directions) Page 7 of 7