Central Information Commission
H K Mishra vs Railway Board on 27 October, 2020
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611
H K Mishra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o Railways,
Railway Board, RTI Cell,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.03.2018 FA : 19.05.2018 SA : 10.10.2018
Hearing : 28.04.2020;
CPIO : 02.05.2018 FAO : 28.07.2018 14.07.2020 and
20.10.2020
Following were present:
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, D.D.F. (E), Railway Board, heard over the
phone.
Page 1 of 8
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611
ORDER
Information sought:
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Railways, Railway Board, RTI Cell, New Delhi, seeking information on six points pertaining to his complaint dated 15.01.2018 and payment of TA Bills/Conveyance Bills, including, inter-alia;
"1. Provide certified copy of the action taken on the complaint dated 15.01.2018 which was addressed to Shri Ashwani Lohani, CRB Railway Board, New Delhi against G.R. Ahirwar, Sr. Personnel Officer, Wagon Repair Workshop, NC Railway Jhansi,
2. Copy of instructions issued in making payment of TA bills/ Conveyance bills to Retired ARE as admissible in terms of Railway Board letter no. F(E)I/98/AL-28/20 dated 01.02.1999 RBE No. 14/99,
3. Instructions with regards to the submission of TA bills/Conveyance Allowance of ARE retired from Jhansi Workshop, CWM Office in cases where service of ARE has been rendered to the C.Os of other department i.e. Division and Medical Departments".
And other related information.
As per appellant's version, the CPIO's and FAA's reply is not on record. Hence, this present appeal filed by the appellant.
Page 2 of 8CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that no information had been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the CPIO.
Hearing on 28.04.2020:
The appellant's representative, Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, and the respondent, Ms. Sonali Sharma, Joint Director/Finance Estt., M/o Railways, Railway Board, RTI Cell, New Delhi attended the hearing through audio conferencing.
The appellant's representative submitted that his father (appellant) had met with an accident and is in the state of comma. He requested the Commission to adjourn the matter. The Commission, considering the request of the appellant, adjourned the matter to 14.07.2020.
Hearing on 14.07.2020:
An email dated 14.07.2020 has been received from the S/o. H.K. Mishra wherein he informed the Commission about the sudden demise of Sh. H.K. Mishra (appellant) on 13.07.2020 and requested to postpone the hearing.
Interim Decision:
Considering the request of the appellant's representative Sh. Sandeep Mishra and unvaoidable circumstances, the matter is adjourned. The Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a fresh notice for hearing to the parties concerned.Page 3 of 8
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611 Copy of the interim decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The matter is, hereby, adjourned.
Relevant facts emerging during Hearing on 20.10.2020:
Following were present:
Appellant: Shri Sandeep Mishra, representative of Late Shri H.K. Mishra participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone.
Respondent: Ms. Sonali Chaturvedi, Jt. Director, Finance (Estt.), Railway Board; Shri Rakesh Kumar, Dy. Director and APIO (Coord.)/RTI Cell, Railway Board and Shri Gaurav, Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Jhansi, North Central Railway participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones.
The representative of the Appellant Shri Sandeep Mishra stated that the Appellant Shri H.K. Mishra left to heavenly abode on 13.07.2020 and earnestly requested for another adjournment in the instant matter as he is not prepared and wishes to put forth his arguments before the Bench on a later date.
The Commission refused to enlarge another opportunity as the matter has already been adjourned twice. The Bench remarked that in the event if the representative of the Appellant presses for adjournment, the Commission is left with no other option to decide the case on merits.
The representative of the Appellant succumbed to the dictum of the Commission and stated that the instant RTI Application was transferred DF(E)/JDF(E) who disposed the matter on 28.05.2018. He further stated that the information sought at Page 4 of 8 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611 point nos. 1 to 5 of the present RTI Application has not been provided by the Respondent till date.
Shri Gaurav, Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Jhansi, North Central Railway submitted that the information as sought in the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant 6 times. He further submitted that the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application was regarding to action taken on the averred complaint dated 15.01.2018, which was submitted before the Chairman, Railway Board and accordingly the Appellant was apprised with the fact that the said complaint has neither been received by them nor referred to them by the concerned Department. Hence, there is no information available with them regarding action taken on the averred complaint. He furthermore submitted that on point no. 2 of the RTI Application, Appellant had sought certain rules/instruction issued in making good the payment of TA bills/conveyance bills to retired ARE and in response to the same, Appellant was provided a copy of the complete rules vide letter dated 20.07.2018. He added that in response to the information sought at point no. 3 of the RTI Application, available information has been provided to the Appellant on 20.07.2018. In addition, he apprised the Bench that the Appellant's grievance was with regard to non-receiving of the conveyance amount. He explained that since the Appellant was the Defendant in one of the cases, he did not receive the conveyance amount. However, the Appellant should have claimed the same from the concerned office as the CPIO or the office where he is rendering his duty is not competent enough to deal such type of case/matter.Page 5 of 8
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611 Upon being queried as to whether the Respondent has provided reply to the Appellant on all the points of the RTI Application, Shri Gaurav submitted in affirmative and demarcated the Bench to refer the letter dated 28.07.2018.
Final Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, the Commission observes that the instant RTI Application was received by the RTI Cell, Railway Board on 28.03.2018, which was transferred to the concerned CPIO, RTI Cell by the CPIO, DE (D&A) on 16.04.2018. The present RTI Application was further transferred to the CPIO/DFE-G within the same Department on 19.04.2018. That again on 25.04.2018, CPIO/DFE-G transferred the RTI Application to CPIO-RTI Cell, which was later on replied by the CPIO/DFE-G on 28.05.2018.
The aforesaid trajectory shows the manner how the present RTI Application was treated and the Commission expresses its displeasure over the fact that the instant RTI Application was thrown from one Section/Department to the other, without even ascertaining the concerned custodian, thus resulting in wastage of time as well as resources. The Commission cautions the Respondent public authority to refrain exhibiting such lackadaisical approach.
Notwithstanding the above, the written submission dated 09.10.2020 submitted by Ms. Sonali Chaturvedi, Jt. Director, Finance (Estt.), Railway Board; written submission dated 15.10.2020 submitted by Shri Rakesh Kumar, Dy. Director and APIO (Coord.)/RTI Cell, Railway Board is taken on record. Upon a vigilant perusal of the same, it is evident from the record that the Appellant has been Page 6 of 8 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611 provided with every piece of information as available with the Respondent. However, it seems that the Appellant is pursuing a case of grievance, which cannot be redressed by the Commission and the same is outside the adjudicatory powers of the Commission.
In view of the above, the Commission is satisfied that the Appellant has been provided available information and the instant matter is disposed off without any directions to the Respondent public authority.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 20.10.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 7 of 8 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/161611 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Railway Board, RTI Cell, Room No 507-A, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Railway Board, RTI Cell, Room No.- 507, Rail Bhawan, Ground Floor, New Delhi-110001
3. Shri H K Mishra Page 8 of 8