Central Information Commission
Debasis Sengupta vs Railway Board on 28 September, 2020
CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या/ Complaint No. CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783
In the matter of:
Debasis Sengupta ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
CPIO,
Railway Board,
R.T.I. Cell,
(Registration & Coordination),
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
Complaint :
RTI : 08.08.2018 FA : Not on record
10.10.2018
Hearing :-
CPIO : 10.10.2018 FAO : Not on record Interim : 05.08.2020
Final : 25.09.2020.
ORDER
Information Sought:
The complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2018, seeking information on nine points, including, inter-alia;Page 1 of 7
CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783 i. "Is there any Rly. Rule that if ACR/APAR of a Rly. Employee is adverse, then Rly. Administration is bound to inform the employee of the adverse ACR. Please let me be informed of the rule. ii. What is the time limit within which adverse ACR/APAR of a Rly. Employee is to be communicated to him/her?
iii. If the adverse ACR/APAR of a Rly. Employee is not communicated to him/her within specific time period letting him/her have scope to apply against adverse ACR/APAR then can the ACR in question be deemed to be cancelled or be viable? Please specify the rule. iv. If Gradation in ACR/APAR of a Rly. Employee is biased made by the Reporting Officer then what measure is there to rectify. Please specify the Rule.
v. What is the time limit on the part of the Competent Rly. Authority to dispose of the representation by a Rly. Employee against an adverse ACR/APAR? vi. If the Competent Rly. Authority does not dispose of the representation against the ACR/APAR within the time limit then what shall be the consequence that Rly rules specify?
vii. Master Circular No. 28(regarding ACR/APAR of non-gazetted Rly.
Employees) tells that adverse remarks in ACR/APAR by Reporting Officer must be supported by necessary documents of reprimand in any form which must be entailed in yearly ACR/APAR of the subordinate. If the Reporting Officer flouts this directive of Rly. Board and exposes prejudice with understandably ill motive to let down the career of the subordinate working under him/her then what is the directive of Rly. Board in this case? Let me know specifying the Rly. Rule.Page 2 of 7
CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783 viii. Can a subordinate the Rly. Employee approach directly to the highest authority against his controlling skipping the tier? Please let me know with the specification of Rule in support.
ix. If the subordinate Rly. Employee does so as mentioned in (viii) above then can he/she be punished? What is the Rly. Rule to this effect?"
Alleging not to have any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Grounds for Complaint:
The complainant filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the respondent.
Hearing on 05.08.2020:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri. Satyendra Yadav, SO E (NG)I branch & Shri M. K Meena, DDE (N) CPIO's, heard over the phone.
The Complainant was absent during the course of hearing, despite notice duly served upon him.
Audio conferencing with the Complainant could not be established despite due efforts to contact him on his mobile numbers available on records. As reported by the NIC, Kolkata, that there is a sudden lockdown in Kolkata as such appellant might have faced the difficulty reaching NIC. The Commission, therefore, in the interest of justice, adjourn the matter.
The written submission dated 31.07.2020 from the respondent were taken on record.Page 3 of 7
CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783 Interim decision:
Since, the Complainant could not be connected despite due efforts, and Kolkata being under Covid-19 related lockdown on the said date, thus, in the interest of justice, the Commission, hereby, adjourns the matter.
Hearing on 25.09.2020:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Ms. Renuka Nair, Dy. Director, Estt.( Discipline & Appeals) & PIO, heard over the phone.
Submissions made by the Complainant and the Respondent The Complainant was absent during the course of hearing, despite notice duly served upon him.
The Respondent submitted that instant RTI Application was received on 06.09.2018 and appropriate reply was provided to the Complainant on 10.10.2018 via. registered post.
The written submissions dated 17.09.2020, filed by Shri Navin Agarwal, FAA/Executive Dir. Estt. (N), Railway Board, was taken on record.
Final Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and perusing the records, observes that appropriate reply was provided by the Respondent on 10.10.2018.
Now, even so, Commission takes into consideration the averment of the Complainant raised in his complaint that no reply has been received till date, Page 4 of 7 CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783 however, no relief can be ordered in the matter in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
Page 5 of 7CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783 xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
In view of the above, Commission observes that, instant matter does not warrant any inquiry under Section 18(2) of RTI Act. No further action lies.
With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date:25.09.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Ministry Of Railway, Railway Board, R.T.I. Cell, (Registration & Coordination), Room.No-507, 5th Floor, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 Page 6 of 7 CIC/RAILB/C/2018/161783
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Ministry Of Railway, Railway Board, R.T.I. Cell, (Registration & Coordination), Room.No-507, 5th Floor, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001
3. Shri Debasis Sengupta Page 7 of 7