Central Information Commission
Shri Shahabuddin vs East Central Railway, Danapur on 14 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001682
Dated: 14 January 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Shahabuddin,
Name of Public Authority : East Central Railway, Danapur.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his request on 04.03.09 with the CPIO, East Central Railway, Danapur seeking information related to his travel allowance, pay fixation/revised pay, contingent allowance etc. The PIO replied on 23.04.09 enclosing the reply received from the Personnel department dated 19.03.09 giving point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 20.05.09 stating that the copy of the contingent bill has not been provided to him and requesting for the copy of contingency bills from January 2004 to August 2008. The Appellate Authority replied on 26.06.09 enclosing the reply received from the Chief Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur informing him that the contingency bill for the periods 2004 to 2006 are not available and enclosing contingency bills for 2007 and 2008. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his Second appeal on 22.09.09 before the Commission stating that he requires the accounts vetted copy of contingent bill can be of contingent bill with abstract for the month of January 2004 to August 2008.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant and the PIO both were heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
4. The PIO, Mr. Manoj Kumar informed the Commission that the Appellant has requested for various documents which have been provided to him and that the Appellant is still seeking the vetted contingent bills for the period January 2004 to August 2008. He stated that even after searching all the files/records the vetted bills for the period 2004-2005-2006 could not be located and in that disciplinary action has been initiated against 3 clerks who were responsible for this lapse. Chargesheets have already been issued to all the three persons. Since only the contingent bills for the 2007-2008 are available, payment against them can be made. He also added that that the Appellant's grievance relates to the low travel allowance being paid for the travel he undertakes by rickshaw to the Court and back carrying documents etc. and that the Appellant has requested that a fixed amount of contingent allowance be considered for traveling by Rikshaw in the course of his duty. In this connection, the Respondent stated that action has already been initiated and discussions are on going to determine what the fixed amount should be.
5. The Commission on hearing the submissions of both sides directs the PIO to provide the Appellant with certified copies of the charge sheets filed against the 3 head clerks and to inform him about the penalty imposed upon them by 15 February 2010. The Appellant may also be informed about the decision taken regarding the fixed contingent amount as requested by the Appellant, by 15 February, 2010.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Md. Shahabuddin, Head Clerk under, Divisional Railway Manager, East Central, Danapur, Post-Khagaul, Distt.- Patna.
2. The Public Information Officer, East Central Railway, Divisional Railway manager's Office, Danapur Division, Danapur.
3. The Appellate Authority, East Central Railway, Divisional Railway manager's Office, Danapur Division, Danapur.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2010/00002 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri A.K. Rai, Name of Public Authority : East Central Railway, Danapur.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 19.05.09 with the CPIO East Central Railway, Danapur, seeking information against 15 points regarding the re-structuring of the Telecom Section and the Cable Jointer's post. The PIO replied on 12.06.09 providing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 16.07.09 stating that information which he has received is incomplete, wrong and misleading and requesting for the correct information. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 31.08.09 informed the Applicant that the PIO's reply is correct and that further clarification as provided by the Chief Divisional Personal Officer, Danapur has been enclosed for the perusal of the Applicant. Still not satisfied the Applicant filed his Second appeal before the Commission on 01.10.09 stating that information provided is incomplete.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant and the PIO both were heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
4. The Respondent submitted that complete information point wise has been provided to the Appellant and that it is the Appellant's contention that while re-structuring, the calculations in respect of the number of posts has not been done correctly and that there should be one more post of Cable Jointer at Grade-(I). The Respondent added that the calculations were done as per rules and that the Appellant's contention is totally incorrect. According to the Respondent there is no further information available with him on the subject.
5. The Commission, however, keeping in mind the complaint that information provided is incomplete, directs the him (the Appellant), to indicate the missing documents along with date and reference number of each document, to the PIO within 5 days of receipt of this Order and the PIO to provide the certified documents required, within 15 days of receipt of the list from the Appellant.
6. The Commission also directs the PIO to provide an affidavit on non-judicial paper to the Appellant informing him that information that has been provided by both the PIO and the Appellate Authority is absolutely correct and that the posts have been calculated as per existing rules. The affidavit to be provided to the Appellant by 5 February 2010.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri A.K. Rai, H.No. 878/B, Neora Colony Khagaul, Post - Khagaul, Patna.
2. The Public Information Officer, East Central Railway, Divisional Railway manager's Office, Danapur Division, Danapur.
3. The Appellate Authority, East Central Railway, Divisional Railway manager's Office, Danapur Division, Danapur.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001541 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Joginder Kumar Lamba, Name of Public Authority : Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn., New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 22.04.09 with the CPIO, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp., New Delhi seeking various details about the contract/agreement for 2013 and 2014 in Shatabadi Express running between New Delhi to Amritsar, against 7 points. The PIO replied on 20.05.09 providing point wise information and informing the Applicant that information against points 7 pertains to the Northern Railway. Not satisfied with the information the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 02.06.09 stating that information is incomplete and seeking further clarification. The Appellate Authority replied on 03.07.09 providing information against the additional points raised by the Applicant in his First Appeal. However, still not satisfied the Applicant filed his Second Appeal before the Commission on various grounds and stating that information is incomplete and evasive.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Virender Singh represented the Public Authority. Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that all the information as available in the records has been furnished to the Appellant. The Commission noted that the Appellant has sought additional information at the Second appeal stage which was not sought initially in the RTI application dated 02.04.09. However, keeping in view the relief sought by the Appellant from the Commission, the Commission directs the PIO to allow inspection of related files for any further documents which the Appellant is seeking in respect of information sought only against the points raised in his RTI request including file noting, circulars and orders etc, and to provide certified copies of those documents to him by 10 February, 2010.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Joginder Kumar Lamba, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Lamba, C/o M/s Lamba Enterprises, Purani Kotwali, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana.
2. The Public Information Officer, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn.
9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg.
16, parliament Street, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn.
9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg.
16, parliament Street, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001548 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri M Kumar, Name of Public Authority : Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn., New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application on 06.10.08 with the CPO, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corn., New Delhi requesting for information about number of licensees of catering contractors under the control of the IRCTC who have not yet cleared their dues, with their names and amounts till date. The PIO replied on 14.10.08 informing him that presently IRCTC is dealing with approximately 9000 catering units all over Indian Railways. Therefore, information regarding outstanding dues, names and amount of each licensee are required to be collected from IRCTC Zonal Offices and it will take time to provide the information. In response to this letter the Applicant wrote to the PIO on 10.11.08 requesting for information about the number of days it will take to provide the information and also for information about licensee who are directly connected to the corporate office besides IRCTC Zonal offices. The CPIO replied to this letter on 12.12.08 informing the Applicant that collecting the information would take time and that his second query is not clear. He also requested the Applicant to visit the office for further clarification. The PIO once again on 02.03.09 invited the Applicant to visit the office and inspect the files for the information regarding dues against catering contractors as the information is voluminous in nature. Not satisfied with this response, the Applicant filed his first Appeal on 20.05.09 informing the Appellate Authority that he has been informed that information would be given in 3 days and that till date no information has been received. The PIO replied in place of the Appellate Authority on 26.05.09 informing the Applicant that he has been advised to give 3 days notice to visit the office, so as to arrange documents for inspections and the date 05.06.09 was fixed for the inspection. Regarding AC car which the Applicant had requested for the visit to the office for inspection, the PIO requested to pay charges Rs. 800/-. Being aggrieved with reply, the Applicant filed his Second appeal before the Commission on 14.08.09 requesting for the information once again.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. Efforts were made to contact the Appellant over the phone but the contact could not be established even after ringing him up 4 to 5 times.
4. Mr. Virender, Singh, Manager represented the Public Authority. Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the delay in providing the information was due to the fact that the information had to be collected from different Zonal offices and that whatever has been made available by the Zonal can now be furnished. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to provide complete information to the Appellant by 10 February, 2010.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri M. Kumar, C/o Mr. M.L. Chawla, Kothi No. 321, 2nd Floor, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
2. The Public Information Officer, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn.
9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg.
16, parliament Street, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corpn.
9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg.
16, parliament Street, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001561 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Arun Singal, Name of Public Authority : Indian Railway Catering & Tourism corpn., New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 01.06.09 with the CPIO, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation, New Delhi seeking information related to the criteria adopted for calling tenders for stalls at Amritsar, Chandigarh, Bhatinda, Delhi, New Delhi etc., and other information against 9 points. The PIO replied on 02.01.09 providing point wise information and also informing the Applicant that the tenders were called in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Railways in catering policy 2005. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First appeal on 15.04.09 stating that the PIO's orders are unfounded and incomplete and not based on the catering policy 2005. The Appellate Authority in his reply dated 15.06.09 providing the following point wise information:
Points 1&2: The NIT inviting bids for stalls at ASR, CDG and BTI was issued as per the catering policy 2005 which prescribes two packet system for inviting tenders for GMU. The same criteria was adopted wherein four basics qualification have been prescribed i.e. experience of two years, sale turn over of 1,0000/- to 2,00000/- depending upon the category of the station, reputation of the firm and documents relating to financial status of the firm. Point 3: The reserve price was fixed taking into consideration Ministry of Railways commercial circular no. 56 of 2006 read with letter dated 07.11.06. The security amount is based on the annual sales turn over of a unit which is calculated taking in to consideration the average sale. The statistics for ASR, CDG and BTI station show that the stalls have been allotted to average Indian or MNCs only. Point 4: There is no policy or directive to award of contracts to only financially high people. In fact, average Indian gets most of the tenders to run stalls/ trolleys. Point 5: The allotment under reserve category fails within the preview of Railway division as such no information is available in this regard. Point 6: The matter relates to Railway division.
Not satisfied with this reply the Applicant filed his Second appeal before the Commission on 03.07.09 once again stating that the information provided is incomplete and evasive and against the facts of the case.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Ajender Chaudhary, Manager (HRD) and Mr. Jagaish Goial, Asstt. Manager represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that information was provided against points 1, 2, 3 & 4 by the PIO and further clarification was provided by the Appellate Authority with regard to points 1 to 6. Information against 7 is available with the Northern Railway.
6. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to obtain the information from the custodian of the information and to provide the same by 5 February, 2010.
7. The Commission also noted that the Appellant in his grounds for appeal has stated that the information provided is incomplete, illegal and bad in law without giving any reasons for such statements or indicating any information that is missing. The Commission directs the Appellant to give a list of missing documents to the PIO within 5 days of receipt of this Order giving the reference number and date of the document and the PIO to provide certified copies of documents to the Appellant by the 5 February 2010.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Arun singal, S/o Shri Jajpat Rai, #71, Shakti Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.
2. The Public Information Officer, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg., 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bldg., 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001535 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Jagdambe Prasad, Name of Public Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his request on 01.06.09 with the CPIO, Northern Railway, New Delhi seeking following information:
(i) What are the conditions when promotion is not affected?
(ii) How long Promotion can be kept in abeyance without any valid reason.
(iii) If an individual suffers loss due to ignorance or deliberately not following the policy, who should be held responsible for the loss and necessary remedial and compensatory action for this.
(iv) What is the motive for not affecting the promotion?
(v) Is promotion given to the individual or given on the basis of system.
(vi) Some individual not tainted on WDS-4, are promoted but some not trained on particular system, are denied promotion. Why this type of discrimination.
(vii) Mr. Goverdhan Lal Garg, Mr. Mohit Kumar, Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad all from SSB, not trained on WDS-4, are promoted, why I cannot be promoted along with them when I am having same qualification.
(viii) Is passing WDS-4 is a mandatory condition for the promotion.
The PIO replied on 26.06.09 following point wise reply:
(i) In case promotion are not effected during a reasonable time or submit refusals and employee will loose his seniority.
(ii) Promotion can not be kept in abeyance without reason.
(iii) If an employee suffers loose of promotion at his own no relief can be provided.
However on administrative reasons the mistake is rectified to keep at par with juniors.
(iv) There might be various reasons like punishment.
(v) Promotion are given in the Order of Seniority.
Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 04.08.09 stating that
(i) Reference is made to my RTI application dated 27.05.09.
(ii) You are requested to pass the suitable directions in this regard as there is no reply from the concerned department till date.
Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 03.07.09 requesting for information. The Appellate Authority replied on 28.07.09 providing further clarification. However, not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his Second Appeal before the Commission.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Mohar Singh, Sr.DMM & PIO, Mr. Raj Kumar, ADM, Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, and Mr. D.B. Malik, CDMS represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Appellant stated that he wants to know why 3 of his office colleagues, all from SSB who have not been trained on WDS-4 have been promoted whereas they too were working as shunters like him. The Respondents replied that the two individuals were not working at shunters but as power controllers for which the WDS -4 training is not required for promotion. The Appellant, however, refuted this argument and stated that the two individuals were also working as shunters. In these peculiar circumstances, the Commission directs the PIO to allow inspection of the promotion files and other files of the 3 colleagues by the Appellant so that he can see for himself the place of working of the 3 colleagues, including any file noting, orders etc. in respect of their promotion and to provide certified copies of documents he requires. The information to be provided before 10 February, 2010.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Jagdambe Prasad, L-15/15, Gali No. 15, west Gonda, Delhi-110053.
2. The Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manger's Officer, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manger's Officer, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001585 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Vinod Kumar, Name of Public Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 10.07.08 with the CPIO, Northern Railway, New Delhi seeking certified copies of the Measurement Books during the 10 years of tenure of Mr. S.K. Sapra during the period January 2000 to February 2008. The PIO transferred the application to the PIO cum Sr. DEN (Estate) on 10.06.2008. The Sr. DEN replied on 04.08.08 informing the Applicant that the information sought is voluminous and requesting him to mention a specific case so that information can be provided. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant filed his First appeal on 15.09.08 stating that during the last 7 years no job has been done in the Railway Colony and that it is clear that the Northern Railway Administration which has shown to have spent heavy amounts on maintenance and living facilities for the residents has actually not done so. He further stated that the matter was reported to the JM Vigilance, Northern Railway for further investigation. The First Appellate Authority replied on 04.11.08 informing the Applicant that the information runs in 2744 pages and that the photocopying charge would amount to Rs.5488/-. Being aggrieved with this reply the Applicant wrote another letter dated 25.11.08 to the Appellate Authority enclosing a cash receipt Rs.5488/- towards the information and requesting for legible and duly certified copies of information. The Appellate Authority then vide her letter dated 25.11.08 furnished photocopies of MBs approximately running into 2450 pages for the period January 2000 to February 2008. However, in his letter dated 24.04.09 the Applicant once again wrote to the Appellate Authority informing her that the 2750 pages were neither illegible nor certified and requesting that the documents be provided once again. The Applicant filed his Second Appeal on 26.06.09 stating that no information has been provided.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Mohar Singh, Sr. DMM & PIO, Mr. Yash Pal, and Mr. D.B. Malik, CDMS represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Appellant stated that some of the pages are not illegible and that the pages were also not certified and that the information has been returned to the PIO. it was agreed then that the Applicant would go to the office of the PIO on the morning of the 15 January 2010 and identify those pages which are not legible so that the PIO can provide fresh photocopies of those pages to him, free of cost. The PIO to also certify all the pages containing the information. The whole exercise to be completed by the end of January, 2010. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
6. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Vinod Kumar, Vice-President, T-54/7, Railway Colony, Subzimandi, Delhi, 110007.
2. The Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001589 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri K.C. Sharma, Name of Public Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application on 05.01.09 with the CPIO, Northern Railway, New Delhi seeking photocopies of Tender Committee Proceedings conducted in the case of 'complete track renewal of 9.19 on Delhi - Ambala section between BBDE-DPF station in the Section of SE/P. way/KUN & KKDE under Assistant Divisional Manager Karnal' which was opened on25.05.08. The PIO transferred the application to the Sr. DEN-I on 13.01.09. On not receiving any reply from the PIO the Applicant filed his First Appeal 19.07.09 stating that the information which has been requested pertains to Government records maintained in connection with the contract. Hence the information is within the definition of information as given under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He also stated that during a chance visit to DRM Delhi office he had noticed that some sort of cartel has developed and that tenders are being procured by manipulating facts. He alleged that such activities are at budding stage and that they cannot take place with out the tacit approval of Senior Officers. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 8.4.09, informed the Applicant that the tender was discharged with the approval of the Competent Authority and that the TC minutes contain deliberations on the offer of the participants. So to safeguard the interests of the participants the TC minutes cannot be made available to the Applicant.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Mohar Singh, PIO & Sr. DMM and Mr. D.B. Malik, CDMS represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Commission holds that once the contract has been awarded by the Public Authority based on the bids that have been opened and considered by the Public Authority, the information no longer remains confidential as it relates to a task being taken up in public interest and hence cannot be denied. The complete information therefore may be provided to the Appellant by 10 February, 2010.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri K.C. Sharma, MIG, 17, Ramganga Vihar, Phase - II (Extension), Moradabad, 244001.
2. The Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001601 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Sarwan Kumar, Name of Public Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 27.0.08 seeking information about amount deducted from his arrears of Fifth Pay Commission. The PIO transferred the application to the Sr. DFM on 18.09.08. On not receiving any reply from the PIO the Applicant filed his First appeal on 17.12.08 reiterating his request for the information. The First Appellate Authority replied on 24.02.09 seeking details of the bills because of which amount from his arrears has deducted. Being aggrieved with the reply of the FAA the Applicant approached the Commission with his Second Appeal requesting for the Commission to intervene and ensure that the PF contribution that has been deducted from the arrears is deposited in his account.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Mohar Singh, PIO & Sr. DMM, Mr. Raj Kishore, ADFM-II, and Mr. D.B. Malik. CDMS represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Respondents during the hearing informed the Commission that he had gone out of his way to locate the required information based on which a total PF + VPF amounting to Rs.93, 913/- from April to March 2009 has been deposited in the Applicant's PF account. The Applicant was satisfied with this information.
6. The appeal is disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Sarwan Kumar, s/o Shri Hukam Singh, H.No. 59, Jasola, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2. The Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry road, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry road, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001606 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Narendra Tyagi, Name of Public Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 03.02.09 with the CPIO, Northern Railway, New Delhi seeking information against miscellaneous questions about the Railway police in Kirti Nagar deployed along the Railway line. The PIO & Sr. DMM, Delhi transferred the application to the PIO, RPF and the Nodal Official Sr. DEM on 05.02.09. On not receiving any reply from the PIO the Applicant filed his First appeal on 08.06.09 stating that he has not received any information. The Appellate Authority replied on 10.06.09 informing him that eviction papers have been submitted to the estate officer.
As and when the Orders are passed the action as per the Order would be taken. She also stated that no legal action has been taken against Mr. Zile Singh and that 100 fresh encroachments were removed recently from the site. Still not satisfied the Applicant filed his Second appeal stating that information provided is incomplete.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter for January 14, 2010.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
4. Mr. Mohar Singh, PIO & Sr. DMM and Mr. D.B. Malik, CDMS represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Commission holds that information sought against point No.2 & 3 do not fall under definition of information as provided under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and also noted that information has been provided against all the points. However, the PIO is directed to provide all the copies of supporting documents related to the points 2, 5, and 6 in the First Appellate Authority's order. Copies of the documents to be provided by 10 February 2010.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Narendra Tyagi, WZ-58-D, Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
2. The Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager's Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2010/000018 Dated: 14 Jan 2010 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Tyagi Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Environment & Forests Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.09 with the CPIO, Ministry of Environment & Forests seeking information about the name/s and designation/s of the official(s)/officer(s) who prepared the draft, dealt with in the channel upto the officer who approved the draft of the letter no. 12011/24/2002-AVU dated 09.10.2003 written to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant and one Sh. H C Dhawan. He further sought the name and designation of the officer who approved the draft for issuance.
2. The CPIO responded by the letter dated 22.07.2009 providing the information in the form of the designation/s of the officer/s who had prepared and approved the draft for issuance, information whereof had been sought by the Appellant. However, the names of the officers were not disclosed by the CPIO seeking exemption under Section 8 (1)
(g) of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Being aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 04.08.09 reiterating his RTI queries. The Appellant contended that the provisions of Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005 had been misinterpreted in denying the names of the officers who had dealt with the concerned file. Upon non receipt of any information from the Appellate Authority, except a communication dated 03.09.2009 signed by Smt. Asha Mahajan, Section Officer (Vigilance) stating that the Ministry confirms its earlier view and there was nothing new to be informed. Hence, the Appellant being denied complete information approached the Central Information Commission by filing the instant appeal on 22.10.2009. In his Appeal the Appellant challenged the denial of information by the Public Authority alleging that the denial was malicious and intentional while contending that the exemption as sought by the CPIO for denial of information was inapplicable in his case.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 14, 2010 and the notice for the hearing dated 05.01.2010 was accordingly sent to the parties.
5. Sh. Vijay Kumar, Director (Vigilance)/CPIO and Sh. R R Rashmi, JS,MoEF represented the Public Authority.
6. The Appellant was present in person during the hearing.
Decision
7. During the hearing, the parties reiterated their arguments as found already in the records. In addition, in response to the complaint of the Appellant that no action was taken on his file for the last 5 years, the Respondent submitted that the file in question had been sent from the Ministry to UPSC in 2008 for consultation regarding the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently the file was returned, since the UPSC sought certain additional documents from the Ministry. Upon tracing some of the documents with help from the Delhi Government, the Ministry had forwarded the file once again to the UPSC sometime in 2009. However, even on this instance, some documents were found illegible, as per the contention of the Respondent, and hence the file had been sent back to the Ministry. It was subsequently sent back to UPSC and is presently lying with them.
8. Perusal of the documents on record and considering the arguments of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the process of disposal of a matter in a Public Authority including drafting a decision till the stage of its approval is a shared responsibility and that denial of disclosure of names of officers who had dealt with the file in question at various levels under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005, by the CPIO, is justified. The Appellant is also not able to provide any reasonable explanation to substantiate his argument for seeking the names.. While the designations of the all the officer(s)/official(s) as sought by the Appellant have been provided to him, (there were only to officers involved according to the Respondent) the Commission does not find any justification in the insistence of the Appellant seeking the name/s of all such officer(s)/official(s). Hence the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the CPIO's order dated 22.07.2009 to the extent of denial of furnishing of name/s of officer(s)/official(s) under provisions of Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005.
9. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of as dismissed.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Prabhat Tyagi D-II/B-45, Motibagh -I New Delhi
2. CPIO Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Prayvaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi
3. Appellate Authority Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Prayvaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi
4. Press E Group, CIC
5. Officer in charge NIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2010/000017 Dated: 14 January 2010 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Tyagi Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Environment & Forests Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 30.06.09 with the CPIO, Ministry of Environment & Forests seeking information with respect to a File No. 12011/24/2002-
AVU relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant and one Sh. H C Dhawan. The Appellant sought photocopy of the file noting in the aforementioned case and copies of the notesheets of the file wherein the disciplinary authority was satisfied and approved to exonerate Sh. Ishwar Singh, IFS in accordance with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Sh. Jagdish Kiswan, while disagreeing with the findings of the disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant and Sh. H C Dhawan, IFS.
2. The CPIO responded by the letter dated 24.07.2009 denying the information, seeking exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. It was the contention of the CPIO that the documents requested for related to ongoing disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant among two others, hence it was apprehended that disclosure of the same would impede the ongoing proceedings.
3. Being aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 04.08.09 reiterating his RTI queries. The Appellant contended that the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 violated the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 since Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 protects the information, disclosure whereof would impede process of investigation whereas in the instant case, the information sought by the Appellant sought to expedite the process since no prosecution is pending, therefore the question of impeding investigation was unjustified. The Appellant did not receive any response/information from the Appellate Authority, except a communication dated 03.09.2009 signed by Smt. Asha Mahajan, Section Officer (Vigilance) stating that the Ministry confirms its earlier view and there was nothing new to be informed. Hence the Appellant being denied complete information approached the Central Information Commission by filing the instant Appeal on 22.10.2009. In his Appeal the Appellant while reiterating the entire sequence of events leading to the instant Appeal, challenged the denial of information by the Public Authority alleging that the denial was malicious and intentional while contending that the exemption as sought by the CPIO for denial of information was inapplicable in his case.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 14, 2010 and the notice for the hearing dated 05.01.2010 was accordingly sent to the parties.
5. Sh. Vijay Kumar, Director (Vigilance)/CPIO and Sh. R R Rashmi, JS,MoEF represented the Public Authority.
6. The Applicant was present in person during the hearing.
Decision
7. During the hearing, the parties reiterated their arguments as found already in the records. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the file in question had been sent from the Ministry to UPSC in 2009 for consultation regarding the disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, the Appellant argued that one out of the three [including the Appellant] officers accused viz. Mr. Ishwar Singh, IFS, in accordance with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Sh. Jagdish Kiswan, had been exonerated of the charges. Hence the Respondent could not seek exemption under provisions of the Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005.
8. It is evident from perusal of the documents that the process of enquiry with respect to the disciplinary proceedings is complete and report in this regard has also been put up with concerned authorities and that Mr. Ishwar Singh has been exonerated of all the charges. Hence, the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 as far as Mr. Ishwar Singh goes is unjustified as the disciplinary proceedings have reached finality in his case. The Appellant's contention that since no prosecution or investigation or enquiry is pending, no apprehension of impeding investigation can arise, is correct. Admittedly, the names of all three co-accused are known to the Appellant, since he is one of them, accordingly there can be no secrecy in furnishing the remaining information. However, in view of the submissions of the Respondent that the file had been sent to the UPSC, and that the PIO in the Ministry, being better aware of the case and hence is in a better position to provide the information to the Appellant, this Commission directs that the said file be procured by the Ministry from the UPSC, and information as sought by the Appellant be provided to him before 5th Feb 2010, while using provisions under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act to sever any part of the information which is exempt from disclosure while disclosing reasons for severing the information under Section10(2).
9. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Prabhat Tyagi D-II/B-45, Motibagh -I New Delhi
2. CPIO Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Prayvaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi
3. Appellate Authority Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Prayvaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi
4. Press E Group, CIC
5. Officer in charge NIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2010/000016 Dated: Jan 2010 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Tyagi Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Environment & Forests Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 30.06.09 with the CPIO, Ministry of Environment & Forests seeking information with respect to a File No. 12011/24/2002-
AVU relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant and one Sh. H C Dhawan. The two-fold information sought were as given hereunder:
i. Name(s) and designation(s) of the officer(s)/official(s) who dealt with the file during the past three years and the period for which the file remained with him/her;
ii. Copies of the letter(s) written to UPSC while referring the case to it and copies of letters received from UPSC, with which UPSC returned the case to the Ministry of Environment & Forests.
2. The CPIO responded by the letter dated 24.07.2009 providing the information against the query (i.) in the form of the designations of the various officers who had dealt with the file relating to disciplinary proceedings, as referred by the Appellant. However, the names of the officers have not been disclosed by the CPIO seeking exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005. The CPIO had further declined to disclose information against the query (ii.) on the ground that the final decision in the disciplinary proceedings was pending and it was apprehended that disclosure of information in this regard would impede the process of ongoing disciplinary proceedings, accordingly exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 was sought.
3. Being aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 04.08.09 reiterating his RTI queries. The Appellant justified his Appeal on the ground that neither the CPIO had provided the time period for which the concerned file remained with each of the officers, who dealt with the file during the past years nor had the non disclosure of this information been justified. The Appellant further contended that the provisions of Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005 had been misinterpreted in denying the names of the officers who had dealt with the concerned file. Similarly the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 was also challenged by the Appellant on the ground that since no prosecution is pending, therefore the question of impeding investigation cannot be apprehended. The Appellant did not receive any response/information from the Appellate Authority, except a communication dated 03.09.2009 signed by Smt. Asha Mahajan, Section Officer (Vigilance) stating that the Ministry confirms its earlier view and there was nothing new to be informed. Hence the Appellant being denied complete information approached the Central Information Commission by filing the instant Appeal on 22.10.2009. In his Appeal the Appellant while reiterating the entire sequence of events leading to the instant Appeal, challenged the denial of information by the Public Authority alleging that the denial was malicious and intentional while contending that the exemptions as sought by the CPIO for denial of information were inapplicable in his case.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for January 14, 2010 and the notice for the hearing dated 05.01.2010 was accordingly sent to the parties.
5. Sh. Vijay Kumar, Director (Vigilance)/CPIO and Sh. R R Rashmi, JS,MoEF represented the Public Authority.
6. The Applicant was present in person during the hearing.
Decision
7. During the hearing, the parties reiterated their arguments as found already in the records. In addition, in response to the complaint of the Appellant that no action was taken on his file for the last 5 years, the Respondent submitted that the file in question had been sent from the Ministry to UPSC in 2008 for consultation regarding the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently the file was returned, since the UPSC sought certain additional documents from the Ministry. Upon tracing some of the documents with help from the Delhi Government, the Ministry had forwarded the file once again to the UPSC sometime in 2009. However, even on this instance, some documents were found illegible, as per the contention of the Respondent, and hence the file had been sent back to the Ministry. It was subsequently sent back to UPSC and is presently lying with them.
8. On the other hand, the Appellant argued that the disciplinary proceedings had since been concluded and consequently, one out of the three [including the Appellant] accused had also been exonerated of the charges. Hence it was the Appellant's argument that the Respondent could not seek exemption under provisions of the Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant also expressed his vehement objection to such constructive denial of information by the Public Authority more so, since the Appellant having been one of the three persons facing the disciplinary proceedings was already aware of most of the facts.
9. On perusal of the documents on record and considering the arguments of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005, as sought by the CPIO while denying disclosure of names of the officer(s)/official(s) who had dealt with the file in question, at various levels, is justified. The Appellant is also not able to provide any reasonable argument challenging the Respondent's reliance on Section 8 (1) (g) to deny the information. While the designations of the all the officer(s)/official(s) as sought by the Appellant have been provided to him, the Commission does not find any justification in the insistence of the Appellant seeking the name/s of all such officer(s)/official(s), hence the Commission does not wish to interfere with the CPIO's order dated 24.07.2009 to the extent of denial of furnishing of name/s of officer(s)/official(s) under provisions of Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005.
10. In so far as the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 against the query (ii) is concerned, it is evident from perusal of the documents that the process of enquiry with respect to the disciplinary proceedings is complete and report in this regard has also been put up with concerned authorities. Hence, the Appellant's contention that since no investigation is pending, no apprehension of impeding investigation can arise, is correct. In any event, the Commission noted that the Appellant is only seeking the letter from the Ministry referring the case to UPSC and that from UPSC referring it back to the Ministry, which in the opinion of the Commission cannot influence the process of any further investigation or prosecution. However, in view of the submissions of the Respondent that the file had been sent to the UPSC, this Commission directs that the file to be procured by the Ministry from the UPSC and information as sought by the Appellant be provided to him before 5th Feb 2010. It is also directed that the Public Authority may severe any specific information (if required) as contained in the letters containing the information including any penalty proposed by the Ministry to the UPSC, using provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI Act 2005, while disclosing the reason for such severance under Section 10 (2) of the RTI Act 2005. It is observed by the Commission that the CPIO while passing the order dated 24.07.09 has failed to provide the particulars of the Appellate Authority as is the mandate as per Section 7(8) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus it is a fit case where the Commission issues a Show Cause notice upon the CPIO as to why appropriate action may not be initiated against him for non compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act. Reply to the Show Cause to be sent to the Commission within 10th Feb 2010.
11. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Prabhat Tyagi D-II/B-45, Motibagh -I New Delhi
2. CPIO Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Prayvaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi
3. Appellate Authority Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Prayvaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi
4. Press E Group, CIC
5. Officer in charge NIC