Central Information Commission
Dilip Kumar Sarkhel vs Railway Board on 26 September, 2017
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो ट ऑ फस केपास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ ड जेन यू कपस, नई !द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/RAIL B/A/2016/304498-AB
CIC/RAIL B/A/2016/304495-AB
In the matter of:
Dilip Kumar Sarkhel,
...Appellant
VS
DPG & CPIO,
RTI Cell Room No-507,
5th floor, Railway Board,
New Delhi-110001
&
CPIO
Northeast Frontier Railway
General Manager Office
Dist- Kamrup
PO: Maligaon, Assam-781011
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 27.01.2016
CPIO reply : 24.02.2016
First Appeal : 28.03.2016
FAA Order : 03.05.2016
Second Appeal : 20.09.2016
Date of hearing : 14.09.2017
Facts:
The appellant sought information on 6 points relating to his Grievance Registration number- DOPPN/P/2015/03737 dated 03.11.2015, copy of the 1 acknowledgment, copies of the relevant file notings, status report and other correspondence etc. The CPIO replied on 24.02.2016 and informed the appellant that the RTI application was transferred to the N.F Railway being the holder of the relevant information under the RTI Act. The appellant being aggrieved filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also reiterated the fact that the service grievance of the appellant was related to the N.F railway. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 20.09.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Shri S. Sen, Sr. DCM (Guwahati)
Representative of PIO, Shri A. Rangarajan,
SO (Delhi)
During the hearing on being asked by the Commission to state full facts of the case at hand, the PIO, Shri S. Sen, Sr. DCM (Guwahati) failed to satisfy the Commission and the Commission observed that the PIO came to attend the CIC's hearing without briefing. The respondent CPIO (nodal), North East Frontier Railway was accordingly reprimanded by the Commission for absenting himself despite receipt of a timely and valid notice and not sending a proper representative to defend the interest of the respondent authority in the case. The representative of PIO (Delhi), Shri A. Rangarajan, SO (Delhi) was also not briefed properly and could not assist the Commission in their deliberation.
2The appellant was not present to plead his case.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that no reply was provided to the appellant in all these years.
The following letters of "Warning" are issued by the Commission as follows:-
1. The respondent PIO, RTI Cell, Railway Board and Dy. Director (PG), Shri Deepak Biswas is issued a warning for sending another official in his place without proper briefing.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to Member (Traffic), Railway Board for information.
2. The then CPIO and the present nodal CPIO, North East Frontier Railway are issued warning for not furnishing proper reply whatsoever in this case to the appellant in all these years. They should note 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 the CPIOs should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application. The respondent CPIOs should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against the respondent officers mentioned above.
It is also seen from the record that the online RTI application was sent to the railway board on transfer from the Department of Pension on 09.11.2015 which in turn sent the same to the CPIO, North East Frontier Railway, Maligaon along with a copy of RTI application only on 24.2.16 i.e. after a gap of more than three months against a stipulated period of only 5 days under the provision of the Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act. This shows an abject lack of responsibility on 3 the part of the Joint Director (Public Grievance), Railway Board i.e. even after he received the grievance on 9.11.15 and even after receiving the RTI application which sought action taken on the grievance dated 9.11.15 through the CPGRAMS Grams Portal, the same was transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to CPIO, North East Frontier Railway only on 24.2.16 and that too not in the correct way i.e. it is not a valid transfer under the provision of the Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act, Hence, Smt. Anita Gautam, Jt Director (Public Grievances) and CPIO, Railway Board is squarely responsible for the delayed transfer of the said RTI application to the Guwahati Division and that too not in accordance with the procedure envisaged u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Smt. Anita Gautam, CPIO cum Joint Director (Public Grievances), Railway Board is issued warning for not providing proper reply to the appellant. She is to note 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 she should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application. The registry of this bench is directed to send copies of all these warnings to the CRB for information and early remedial action.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant, the respondent CPIO, RTI Cell, Office of the General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway, Maligaon is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought 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.
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 direction and warnings as above , the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar Copy to: Member(Traffic), Railway Board, New Delhi 5