Central Information Commission
Mr.Hardwar Singh vs Ministry Of Railways on 9 February, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001645
Date of Hearing : February 9, 2011
Date of Decision : February 9, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri H.D. Singh
Sec02, Navjeevan Vihar
PO Vindhyanager
Distt. Singrauli (M.P.)
486 885
The Appellant was heard through audio conferencing.
Respondents
East Central Railway,
Office of Divisional Manager
Dhanbad Division
Dhanbad
Represented by: Shri B.K. Singh, Sr. DPO, Shri Amitav Banerjee, O.S.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001645
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 11.04.2010, filed with the PIO, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, wanted to know the reasons of nonimplementation of the punishment notice to him for 14 years No. TT/Optg/OT/105/87;dated 04.11.2008 which was in respect of stopping increments in the Applicant's paybill with cumulative effect. He also stated that as a consequence of the imposition of penalty after 14 years, he has put into financial difficulties .
2. The PIO, through a communication dated 29.04.2010, expressed his inability to furnish the information to the Applicant on the ground that the matter related to the information is 22 years old. The Applicant, thereafter, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 07.05.2010 expressing his suffering on account of the late implementation of the above punishment notice by the official of the public authority and insisted on being informed about the reasons behind this negligence which caused the detriment on him.
3. The Appellate Authority, on 21.06.2010, furnished a copy of Estt. Office Order No. 103/01/Pay recast/C of 2003 & Dkt No. ET /SM/Retirement dt 10.01.2003 to the Appellant which contained the breakup of the 'pay already drawn' and 'pay recast' of the Appellant along with some handwritten note of the official of the public authority.
4. The above piece of information, however, could not meet the Appellant's requirement and, therefore, he filed the present appeal dated nil in the Commission--received on 20.09.2006-- stating "grant me some relief by canceling my punishment on the ground of RB'S NoE (C&A) 60RG620 of 02.07.1960 which clearly stated that "An order imposing the penalty of with holding of increment can be operative only in respect of an increment to which Railway servant had not become entitled on the date of such order, such an order can not therefore have the effect of withhold had already become entitled [sic]on the date of said order"
Decision
5. The Respondents, during the hearing, stated that all what they had by way of information corresponding to the Appellant's RTIapplication was the calculation sheet (para 3 above) which they have already supplied to the Appellant and that beyond this they do not have anything in the form of the reasons in their record which could reveal as to the reasons why for 14 years ie. from the time the punishment was imposed on the Appellant till the time he retired from service in 2003 no action had been taken to implement the punishment notice. They also admitted that the DAR file which dealt with the Appellant's case is untraceable despite a search. Hence the reasons , if any had been recorded in the file, could not be furnished. The Appellant, who was heard on phone, reiterated his submissions made in his 1st appeal.
6. Upon hearing the parties and after perusing the records, it is quite obvious that the Appellant has suffered a lot on account of the remissness of the officials of the Public authority who woke up to the above punishment notice after 14 years and gave a sudden shock to the Appellant by imposing the ordered penalty on him. The Appellant's anguish is indeed genuine, but there is nothing which the Commission can do by way of help in this regard and nor can the relief being sought by the Appellant (para 4 above) be granted as the same falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
7. In view of the above, it is held that the information, which was available with the Public Authority, has been furnished to the Appellant and that there is, as admitted by the Respondents, nothing more in respect of the Appellant's RTIrequest which can be directed to be furnished.
8. The appeal is accordingly rejected and the case closed at Commission's level.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri H.D. Singh Sec02, Navjeevan Vihar PO Vindhyanager Distt. Singrauli (M.P.) 486 885
2. The Appellate Authority East Central Railway, Office of Divisional Manager Dhanbad Division Dhanbad
3. The Public Information Officer East Central Railway, Office of Divisional Manager Dhanbad Division Dhanbad
4. Officer Incharge, NIC