Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Northern Railway on 22 November, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/NRAIL/C/2017/310091
In the matter of:
Anil Kumar Gupta
...Complainant
VS
Mr. Ashish Jain
DRS/F, Rail Bhawan,
Railway Board, New Delhi - 110001.
&
Sr DCM/PIO, DRM Office, Northern Railway,
Pat Pat Sarai, Moradabad, U.P- 244001. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 14.07.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : Not on Record
FAA Order : Not on Record
Complaint : 27.09.2016
Date of hearing : 08.03.2018, 29.06.2018, 10.08.2018,
09.10.2018, 30.10.2018
Facts:
The complainant vide RTI application dated 14.07.2016 sought information regarding his complaint No. 007 dated 24.02.2016 asking the action taken on his complaint, names official addresses, E-mail Ids and official mobile numbers of the officials who have dealt with the complaint, certified copies of file notings pertaining to the complaint and steps taken to avoid recurrence of such complaints. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the complainant filed a complaint under the provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.09.2016.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Page 1 of 8
Interim Order
Complainant : Representative of the complainant,
Shri Birender Yadav
Respondent : Shri Bankeylal,
Chief Office Superintendent, representative
of PIO, Northern Railway
During the hearing, the representative of respondent PIO, Lucknow submitted that PIO, Lucknow received the RTI application dated 14.07.2016 on 17.08.2016 and on the same day they had transferred the RTI application to Nodal CPIO, Moradabad division for providing the requisite reply. Since the copy of the said transfer letter was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
Representative of the complainant submitted that he had not received any reply and his IPO was rejected in the first instance.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the said transfer was done beyond the mandatory period of five days and that too it was not a proper transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act for which and for delaying the transfer the respondent PIO, Sr. DCM, Lucknow is held responsible. No reply was found on record and the matter at present rests with the PIO, Moradabad division for which show cause notices need to be issued to the respondent PIOs. In view of the above, Show Cause notices are issued to the respondent PIO, Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
(i) Why proper transfer was not done in time (PIO, Lucknow to explain) with relevant documentary proof;
(ii) Why relevant reply was not provided to the complainant in all these years(PIO, Moradabad to explain).
The explanations to the above stated Show Cause notices are to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent PIOs within 15 days of the Page 2 of 8 receipt of this order. The present PIOs, Lucknow and Moradabad are also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the names, addresses, mobile nos., present places of posting and designations of the PIOs working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent PIOs, Lucknow and Moradabad are to serve copies of this order to the then respondent PIOs under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation(s) to the said Show Cause notice(s), further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The respondent PIOs should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation(s) within the time period stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent PIOs.
Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Interim Order : 29.06.2018
Respondent : Shri M.L Meena, Divisional
Commercial Manager cum CPIO
Smt. Anju Singh
Assistant Commercial Manager cum
APIO
The then Sr DCM, Lucknow and Nodal (PIO), Moradabad who were posted on 14.07.2016 to 27.09.2016 were not present despite notice. Hence, the Commission provides the Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad last opportunity to be present before the Commission on 10.08.2018 at 11.00 am before the Commission in person without fail.
The present Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad is strictly directed to ensure that the above mentioned officers are present before the Commission on the next date of hearing i.e. on 10.08.2018.
The case is adjourned.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties of the free of cost.
Interim Order : 10.08.2018
Respondent : Shri Ashish Jain
Director (Railway Stores)
The then Nodal PIO (Moradabad)
Page 3 of 8
The then Sr. DCM, Lucknow, Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha who is posted at present as Sr. DOM, Lucknow expressed his inability to attend the Commission's hearing. He stated through his written submission that in the said case, the PIO who had been issued notice happens to be the then DCM/LKO/Shri M.L Meena. But in the reference letter CIC/NRAIL/C/2017/310091, the personal appearance had been ordered for the then Sr. DCM and PIO. This was one aspect that he wanted to bring up for the commission's notice. He further submitted that on 10.08.2018, a meeting was scheduled at LKO for the purpose of taking decision on Yard Remodelling Execution Plan of the LKO Yard as currently a large number of trains are getting detained at the approach of the LKO almost daily. This meeting, Officers from the Headquarters as well as from engineering streams were scheduled to attend. He, as Sr. DOM, being the nodal officer, had to be present in this important meeting.
On perusal of record, it was noted by the Commission that the Sr. DCM, Lucknow had transferred the said RTI application to the Sr DCM, Moradabad on 17.08.2016.
Shri Ashish Jain, the then Nodal PIO, Moradabad was present in person and submitted that he had not received the said RTI application.
In view of the above he was directed to submit an affidavit that he had not received the said RTI application.
The then Sr DCM, Moradabad posted in 17.08.2016 onwards is required to be present on the next date of hearing to explain as to why no requisite reply was provided to the said RTI application despite receiving the same u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The present Sr DCM, Moradabad is directed to ensure that the then Sr DCM, Moradabad posted in 17.08.2016 is invariably present on the next date of hearing.
The explanation(s) to the above stated show cause notice(s) is/are to be submitted to the Commission by the then Sr. DCM, Moradabad posted in Page 4 of 8 17.08.2016 within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present Sr. DCM, Moradabad is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the PIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. The present respondent PIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent PIO under intimation to the Commission. On receipt of the explanation to the said Show Cause notice, further action as deemed appropriate will be taken.
The then respondent PIO should note that in the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
The case is adjourned.
Final Order : 30.10.2018
Respondent : Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha
Senior Divisional Operating Manager
Lucknow, NR
A showcause notice was issued to the Sr. DCM, Lucknow and nodal CPIO, Moradabad u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
(i) Why proper transfer was not done in time (PIO, Lucknow to explain) with relevant documentary proof;
(ii) Why relevant reply was not provided to the complainant in all these years(PIO, Moradabad to explain).
Explanation from Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha, the then Sr. DCM/LKO & presently posted as Sr. DOM/LKO He submitted that the application of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, dated 14.07.2016 was received at the office of Sr. DMM/NR/LKO who is nominated as the nodal PIO of Northern Railway, Divisional Office, Lucknow. The same application was further transferred to the Sr. DCM/NR/LKO under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, vide their letter no. Sr. DMM/HZG/RTI/2016/078 dated 20.07.2016 which was received by the Commercial department on 02.08.2016 for further action. It is mentioned here that the said RTI application was kept Page 5 of 8 pending by the PIO's Divisional office for disposal from 14.07.2016 to 01.08.2016.
The RTI application dated 14.07.2016 was received by the Commercial Department on 02.08.2016. After examination of the RTI complaint it came to the notice that the complaint was lodged in the complaint book of the working guard of the train no. 13010, Dehradun Express on 24.02.2016. The guard who was on duty at the train no. 13010, Dehradun Express on 14.02.2016 belonged to the Moradabad Division. Since the RTI complaint of the applicant was about a public compliant and the same was 06 months old, the complaint was transferred to the complaint cell to find out the details. This search took few days.
He further added that as soon as the complaint cell confirmed that the said complaint pertained to the Moradabad Division, the same was transferred to the PIO/Moradabad, vide letter No. C/217/RTI/Case-2016-1078, dated 17.08.2016. It is relevant to mention here that the office was closed for five days as per schedule between the date of receipt of the said RTI application i.e. 02.08.2016 and forwarding of the same application under section 6 (3) of RTI Act 2005 i.e. 17.08.2016 to the PIO holding the relevant information. As such, the said application was forwarded within 10 working days of its receipt but it was delayed by five days due to reason beyond control and as explained above.
Therefore, in view of the above facts, he requested the Commission to quash the charges framed upon the then CPIO/LKO i.e. Sr. DCM/LKO because without inquiry in the said matter, forwarding of the RTI application was not justified and hence delay caused in this regard was unintentional. Decision:
In view of the above explanation, the following position is evident:-
a) The said RTI application dated 14.07.2016 of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta was pending with the nodal PIO, Lucknow division i.e. Sr. DMM, Lucknow from 14.07.2016 to 02.08.2016. This delay of around 15 days against the maximum period of 5 days allowable u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act Page 6 of 8 is untenable under the Act. The then Sr. DMM and nodal PIO, Lucknow is responsible for this and needs to be issued a warning.
b) It was also found during the hearing that the said RTI application was received in the Commercial department of Lucknow division on 02.08.2016. However, the case did not pertain to the Lucknow division and hence they transferred the same to the Moradabad division vide their letter dated 17.08.2016. It is therefore evident that the said RTI application was delayed in the commercial department of the Lucknow division for 15 days for which the then PIO and Sr. DCM, Lucknow division is held responsible. The Commission, therefore needs to issue a warning to him also.
The then Sr. DMM and nodal PIO, Lucknow and the then PIO and Sr. DCM, Lucknow division both are issued warning that the said RTI application should have been transferred within a period of 5 days from the receipt of the said application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. They should ensure that in future in every case such transfer of RTI application is invariably effected within 05 days of receipt of the said 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 them by the Commission.
The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the names, present addresses, mobile nos., place(s) of posting and designation(s) of the CPIOs working at the relevant post in July, 2016 for record.
The present respondent CPIO is directed to serve copy of this warning to the then CPIOs. Copies of service of the above said warning are to be submitted to the Commission within 10 days of the receipt of this order.
During the hearing on 10.08.2018 Shri Ashish Jain, the then nodal PIO, Moradabad was present in person and submitted that he had not received the said RTI application on transfer from Lucknow division. He was directed to Page 7 of 8 submit an affidavit in this regard to the Commission that he had not received the said RTI application within 15 days from the receipt of its order. However, after perusal of the case, the Commission observes that the then Sr. DCM had failed to submit an affidavit despite a clear order of the Commission dated 10.08.2016 to do so. The Commission, therefore, gives final opportunity to Shri Ashish Jain, the then nodal PIO, Moradabad to submit an affidavit as stated above within 15 days of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant in this case.
With the above observation/direction, the show cause proceeding is treated as closed.
Copies of the order are to be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 8 of 8