Central Information Commission
Saidur Rehman vs Ministry Of Railways on 5 October, 2017
क यसच ू नाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो टऑ फसकेपास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ डजेनयक ू पस, नई!द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/VS/A/2015/001486-AB + CIC/VS/A/2015/001476-AB
In the matter of:
Saidur Rahman
...Appellant
Vs
Ravinder Pandey,
CPIO - 188 & Joint Director / Vigilance (A&P),
Min of Railway, Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
&
DPG & CPIO,
Room No 507, 5th Floor,
Railway Board, New Delhi-110001
&
The Chief Vigilance Officer,
Vigilance Department,
Northern Railway,
Headquarters Office,
Baroda House,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 17.12.2014
CPIO reply : 20.01.2015 & 29.01.2015
First Appeal : 18.02.2015
FAA Order : 15.04.2015
Second Appeal : 29.05.2015& 28.05.2015
Date of hearing : 19.06.2017, 31.08.2017
1
Facts in CIC/VS/A/2015/001486:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 17.12.2014 sought action taken on his complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 with copies of file notings, the report sought in connection with the RBV No-12/2009, the details relating to the RBV No-05/2008 and the RBV No-05/2009. If however no report was submitted to the Railway Board, name of the official responsible for the lapse may be provided to the appellant. The CPIO, NR HQ, Baroda House provided an interim reply on 20.01.2015. The appellant being aggrieved filed first appeal on 18.02.2015. The FAA, Railway Board held that information shall be provided by the CPIO Vigilance. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 29.05.2015.
Facts in CIC/VS/A/2015/001476:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 17.12.2014 sought action taken on his complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 with copies of file notings, the report in connection with the RBV No-12/2009, the details relating to the RBV No-05/2008 and the RBV No-05/2009. If no report was submitted to the Railway Board then name of the official responsible for such lapse. The APIO Lucknow division returned the RTI application to Dy. CVO, NR HQ, Baroda House on 29.01.2015 stating that the complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 were not available with the Lucknow Division of the NR. The appellant being aggrieved filed first appeal on 18.02.2015. The FAA, NR HQ, Baroda House again clarified the fact and claimed that the matter pertained to the Lucknow Division of the NR. The appellant being aggrieved, filed second appeal before this Commission on 28.05.2015.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : APIO, Shri Mukesh, APO (Lucknow)
2
Absent in Delhi (in 1486)
Rep. of PIO, Shri Deepak (Delhi in 1476)
The appellant submitted that he had not received any information. He also submitted that there is no Vigilance branch in the Lucknow Division of the NR. The CVO, NR HQ, Baroda House should provide the necessary information to the appellant.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided to the appellant.
A Show Cause Notice is issued to the CPIO, Vigilance, Railway Board for not dealing with the said RTI application properly thus obstructing smooth flow of information. The said Show Cause notice is to be served through the present CPIO to all the CPIOs working at the concerned post since December, 2014 till date. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name(s), address(s), mobile no(s)., present place(s) of posting and present designation(s) of all the CPIOs working since December, 2014 at the above stated post. The explanation to the Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission within 21 days of the receipt of the order. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause Notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The appellant relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 6088/2014 in the matter of Ministry of Railways VsGirish Mittal to buttress his case. It was found to be proper. The operative part of the order reads as follows:
"15. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act is clearly misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case where penalty has been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with 3 respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3)of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials. Undeniably, the directions of CIC were not complied with."
In the light of the above decision, the Commission finds that the RTI application dated 17.12.2014 in the case no CIC/VS/A/2015/001486 was addressed to CPIO, Railway Board and the RTI application dated 17.12.2014 in the case no CIC/VS/A/2015/001476 was addressed to CPIO, Northern Railway Baroda House and both the RTI applications were transferred among several public authorities concerned. The fact remains that no parawise reply was provided to the appellant. The concerned CPIOs were seen to deal with the said RTI application in a routine manner with no sense of urgency by transferring the concerned RTI application without any urgency and often without any purpose which is deplorable.
Be that as it may, since no information was provided, CPIO, Vigilance, Northern Railway, HQ, New Delhi is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record including certified true copies of the documents sought for e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, CPIO/PIO, may take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
4The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record. With the above direction, both the appeals are disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 31.08.2017 Respondent : 1. Shri Ravinder Pandey, CPIO, Railway Board
2. Shri Vikram Kumar, Sr DFM/LKO
3. Shri M.B Singh, Sr DFO/LKO
4. Shri G.C Lawania, AVO/Engg During the hearing, the Commission perused the written explanations received from the PIOs in response to the notice dated 14.07.2017. Shri Ravinder Pandey, CPIO-118 & Joint Director/ Vigilance (A & P) Railway Board submitted that he has handled the RTI application registered in APIO/RTI Cell/Ministry of Railways' records as RB/RTI application till date. He could not attend the earlier hearing on 19.06.2017 as he had been outside India on leave from 22.05.2017 to 04.07.2017.
He submitted the brief facts of the case as follows:
An RTI application dated 17.12.2014 from Shri Saidur Rahman was forwarded by the Department of Post by their covering letter dated 22.12.2014 which was received on 07.01.2015. In the said application, the applicant requested for the following information:
(a) Action taken on complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 to the CVO/Railway Board along with copies of file notings and orders.5
(b) In the event the complaints had been transferred to the Northern Railway for necessary action, copies of reports received from the Northern Railway.
(c) If no report has been forwarded by the Northern Railway to the Railway Board, the action taken against the officers responsible for such non supply along with copies of file notings and orders.
(d) If the report has not been forwarded by Northern Railway, the action taken by Railway Board along with copies of file notings and orders.
(e) If no action has been taken by Railway Board on complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014, information along with supporting documents, rule/ circular/ policy.
(f) If the two complaints had been found to be false/baseless, the copies of documents, rules, circulars, policy therefore along with investigation report.
(g) If the two complaints had been found to be false/ baseless, the action taken against the complainant as per Indian Penal Code.
(h) If the complaints had been found to be true, the action taken against responsible officers.
(i) If the complaints had been found to be true and still the responsible officers had not been punished/proceeded against, the details thereof.
He further submitted that the two complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014, in respect of which the applicant sought information, had been received in the Vigilance Directorate of the Railway Board. In the said complaints, certain irregularities in the Northern Railway were alleged by the complainant. Both these complaints were forwarded by the Vigilance Directorate of the Railway Board to the General Manager (Vigilance), Northern Railway for taking appropriate action as deemed fit and for disposal of the complaints. In accordance with the available information/ status of the said complaints, the relevant information was 6 furnished to Shri Saidur Rahman vide letter dated 27.01.2015 that the above two complaints were transferred to General Manager (VIG)/Northern Railway for disposal at their end and the documents (i.e. action taken on the complaint- copies of the letters transferring the complaints to Northern Railway) were also furnished to the applicant. Simultaneously, his RTI application was also transferred to the General Manager (Vig)/ Northern railway under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for furnishing information to the applicant directly as the requested information was held by the Northern railway. He also submitted that the information held by the Vigilance Dte of railway Board was immediately furnished along with necessary documents to the applicant. Since other items of information were not held by the Vigilance Dte of the Railway Board and the same were held by the Northern Railway, the RTI application was also transferred under Sec 6(3) of RTI Act for smooth flow of information. The applicant was also informed about the transfer of the RTI application to the Northern Railway.
He further submitted that the applicant preferred first appeal on 18.02.2015 to the Railway Board as forwarded by Department of Post vide letter dated 02.03.2015 received in the Vigilance Dte of Railway Board on 31.03.2015. In the said first appeal, the appellant while acknowledging receipt of Railway Board's letter dated 27.01.2015 and documents attached therewith stated that the requested information had not been received by him. He also disputed transfer of the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Northern Railway. The First Appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority (Executive Director/ Vig (Accounts, railway Board) and a reply was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 15.04.2015 once again explaining the position including the reason for transfer of the said RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the NR. The First Appeal was also transferred to the Appellate Authority/ 7 Vigilance/Northern railway for action and the appellant was informed about such transfer.
He stated that the copy of the second appeal dated 29.05.2015 preferred by the appellant before the CIC was received in the Vigilance Dte of the Railway Board on 28.10.2016 and immediate action was taken on the advance copy as well.The Appellate Authority (Vigilance) Northern Railway was advised to take immediate necessary action vide letter dated 29.11.2016. As per information available, a letter dated 24.01.2017 which was endorsed by the Northern railway to the Vigilance Dte of Railway Board, was addressed by the Appellate Authority/Northern Railway explaining the position to Shri Saidur Rahman.
The notice dated 23.05.2017 for hearing of the second appeal before the CIC on 19.06.2017 at 12.40. PM was also immediately forwarded to the Appellate Authority as well as the CPIO of Northern railway (Vigilance) with the direction to attend the hearing with all relevant papers and documents vide letter dated 02.06.2017. The Appellate Authority and the CPIO, Northern Railway (Vigilance) were once again advised vide letter dated 16.06.2017 to make all out efforts to dispose the case before the date of hearing on 19.06.2017.
He summed up his submission by stating that from the sequence of events as mentioned above it can be observed that action taken at every stage of the case by the Vigilance Dte of Railway on the two complaints was immediate. In order to facilitate smooth flow of information to the applicant, the said RTI application/first appeal/second appeal were transferred under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act to the authority which held the information. Any other information, other than already furnished to the applicant was not held by the Vigilance Dte of the Railway Board and it could not have furnished the same to the appellant. This position was informed to the applicant/appellant again and again. The transfer of RTI application/ first appeal/ second appeal was also not undertaken 8 in a routine manner but was done to ensure that the applicant gets the requested information from the custodian of the information at the earliest.
He also mentioned in the said submission that even the applicant/ appellant was aware that the requested information was not held by the Railway Board and therefore he had made the same RTI application dated 17.12.2014 to the Northern railway as well.
It was also submitted that in accordance with the direction of the CIC in the above decision, the Appellate Authority/ CPIO (Vigilance), Northern railway had been advised to take immediate steps to implement the decision under intimation to their office.
The CPIO(Vigilance) Northern Railway submitted that the same complaints were forwarded to the Lucknow Division of the NR. Hence, the RTI application was also transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Lucknow division of the NR.
On perusal of record and based on the above submission, it was revealed that the RTI application of the appellant was not dealt with properly. The simple matter was made complicated by the Railway Board by mindlessly transferring the RTI application, the first appeal and the second appeal to the NR.The CPIO did not take pain to examine the crux of the matter. The appellant had simply asked for the action taken on his two complaints i.e. dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 with copies of file notings etc. The Vigilance Department of the Railway Board after receiving the said complaints must have submitted notings on a certain file and submitted the same before the competent authority for direction in the matter. There would have been direction / decision on record to transfer the said complaints to the Northern Railway. The same is true in regard to the transfer of the RTI application, first appeal and second appeal to the Allahabad Division of the NR. The complete file notings in the first instance should be with the Railway Board (Vig) only. In the second case i.e. about the decision to send the RTI case to 9 the Allahabad division of the NR, the file notings should be with the CPIO (Vig), NR, Baroda House. However, after all these "toings" and "froings" of the RTI case, the Allahabad division, the final port of call of the case also must have, after receiving the said complaints through the railway board, taken certain action / decision in the matter which should be reflected in notings on files maintained by them. The appellant has every right to know the action taken on his complaint in the form of copies of relevant file notings, correspondence etc as discussed above kept at the offices of the Railway Board (Vig Dte), Northern Railway, Vig division(Hq) and Allahabad division Hq (Vig Branch).
The Commission is constrained to note that the CPIO (Vig), Railway Board, CPIO (Vigilance), Northern Railway and CPIO (Vig), Allahabad did not take any meaningful step to allow the appellant access to the information sought for, rather they tried their best to shirk their responsibility by continuously "passing the buck".
The Commission does not want to comment on the action taken or not taken on the appellant's complaint by the Railway Board, Northern Railway and Allahabad division. But it is deplorable that they tried hard to pass responsibility for giving final reply to the said RTI application to the authority subordinate to each of them in a routine and mindless manner. It is a mystery till date to the Commission to know as to what happened to the appellant's two complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 submitted to the railway board.
During the hearing the CPIO, Railway Board reiterated that there were 3 complaints filed by Sh. Saidur Rahman dated 01.07.2014, 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 and that the three complaints were similar in nature. The complaint dated 01.07.2014 was only considered by them. The complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 were not forwarded for any action as those were purportedly similar to the one dated 01.07.2014. The concerned CPIO 10 submitted copies of complaints dated 12.09.2014 and 01.07.2014 to the Commission during the hearing, but those complaints were addressed to different authorities i.e. CVC, Advisor Vigilance, Railway Board etc. The copy of the complaint dated 25.06.2014 submitted by the PIO to the CIC during the hearing was incomplete and unsigned. Hence, it was not considered by the Commission as an admissible piece of record in the present case.
The Commission observes that in the documents submitted by the CPIO to the CIC, there is a letter having two dates. i.e 01.07.2014 and 12.09.2014. However, the contents of the letter dated 25.06.2014 could not be verified. If we presume that the complaints were the same, even then also the initial complaint would be dated 25.06.2014 followed by other complaints dated 01.07.2014 and 12.09.2014. It is quite surprising that the CPIO stated during the hearing that the complaint dated 01.07.2014 was forwarded whereas the complaints dated 25.06.2014 and 12.09.2014 were not forwarded for action to the subordinate authorities. On the other hand they submitted a copy of a complaint containing two dates. In view of these apparent contradictions in the submission of the respondent before the CIC during the hearing, the Commission could not have faith in any of the averments in the absence of supporting documents / records. The only plea of Sec 6(3) transfer by the CPIO (Vigilance), Railway Board is not sufficient ground to absolve him from the charge of negligence committed while dealing with this case.
The letter dated 27.01.2015 of the CPIO-118, Railway Board regarding Sec 6(3) transfer under the RTI Act addressed to the appellant was not proper. It should have been addressed to CPIO (Vigilance)/ Northern Railway and a copy should have been endorsed to the applicant but it was done the other way which is not a valid way to transfer an application under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act. Moreover the said Sec 6(3) transfer was beyond a period of 5 days as stipulated u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. The CPIO-118, Railway Board admitted that this was a mistake 11 due to ignorance of the Act and the same mistake is not committed by him now a days as he has been briefed better about the implementation of the RTI Act.
In view of the above, the Commission would like to fix responsibility for non provisioning of the requisite reply to the RTI application dated 17.12.2014 on the then CPIO (Vig), Railway Board. The para 1 of the said RTI application clearly pertained to the CPIO(Vig), Railway Board and instead of transferring the relevant paras, the whole application was transferred mindlessly to the CPIO(Vig), NR by the then CPIO(Vig), Railway Board. The letter dated 27.01.2015 was claimed by PIO, Railway Board as Sec 6(3) letter which is not acceptable. The letter dated 27.01.2015 has no relevance to the case and the ignorance of the procedure involved while transferring RTI application under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act on the part of the then CPIO(Vig), Railway Board is by no means justifiable.
The First Appellate Authority, Shri Aditya Kumar Vajpayee also stepped into the CPIO's shoes and transferred the first appeal under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act which is not permissible under the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority chose to go beyond the legislative scheme of the RTI Act.
The CPIO (Vigilance), Northern Railway, HQ, Baroda House, Shri Girish Lavania, AVO submitted that he would make sincere efforts to provide a revised categorical reply on the appellant's specific queries, and by taking assistance of the CPIO, Allahabad Division.
In view of the above, the then CPIO (Vig), Railway Board and CPIO (Vigilance), Northern Railway are issued warning to deal with RTI applications strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act in future. The registry is directed to send the copies of the "warning" to the Chairman, Railway Board for information. The present CPIO (Vig), Railway Board is directed to serve copies of this warning to the then CPIO/PIO and send in copies of the service of the said warnings to the concerned officers, to the 12 CIC within a period of 10 days from the receipt of this order. The CPIO Vigilance, Northern Railway is given last opportunity to provide a revised reply (as discussed above) to the appellant within 15 days from the receipt of this order, by taking assistance from the CPIO, Lucknow Division and the CPIO Railway Board u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 under information to this Commission.
With the above warning the show-cause proceeding is closed.
Copies of this order be sent to concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra)/ Deputy Registrar Copy to: Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi 13