Central Information Commission
Naresh Mokate vs Department Of Posts on 29 December, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/118136-UM- Final Decision
Mr. Naresh Mokate
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Senior Superintendent of post Offices,
New Delhi Central division, Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.05.2021/11.11.2021
Date of Decision : 27.05.2021/28.12.2021
Date of RTI application 24.12.2018
CPIO's response 15.01.2019
Date of the First Appeal 07.03.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 08.04.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.04.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information pertaining to action taken and proceeding status on his application/letter/ online Complaint dated 28.11.2018. The CPIO/SSPO, Deptt. of Posts, Delhi vide letter dated 15.01.2019 informed that it is intimated that article no. CM4081326521N addressed to President of India has not been received at Rashtrapati Bhawan Post Office till 11.01.2019. As per tracking of SAP the article under reference is showing as 'Bag opened at Jalgaon PH on 30.11.2018' and further disposal is not showing.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2019 stated as follows:
Page 1 of 8Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr.NareshMokate, through AC;
Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj, Superintendent of Post Offices, through AC.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the hearing of the matter was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI application showed his serious displeasure and submitted that despite a response being furnished to him the Article for which the RTI Application had been filed remains missing and thus their responsible delivery of public services and the delay and harassment caused by the Respondent Authority must be taken into consideration and equitable compensation be rewarded to him as the Article pertain to litigation matter concerning with the life and liberty of the Appellant who is a Nuclear Scientist with the Govt of India. The Appellant further submitted that the article weighed about half a Kilogram and was addressed to no less than the President of India. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that the article in question was supposed to be delivered under the purview of his jurisdiction however, the same got lost/ misplaced under the jurisdiction of PIO, Page 2 of 8 Jalgaon, and there was no lack or delay caused at their end as the reply was also duly furnished to the Appellant. However, it was submitted by the Respondent that the Appellant may seek compensation from the Respondent as per the Department norms for the loss occurred to him.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 13.05.2021, which is taken on record.
INTERIM DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and also taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter the Commission remands back the matter to the FAA, O/o. the Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi, to conduct an enquiry with the help of the FAA, Aurangabad and ensure the compliance of its earlier order dated 08.04.2019. The Respondent should seek an explanation from the concerned defaulting personnel/ PIO of the Department for the trauma faced by the Appellant because of the serious lack of professionalism on the part of the defaulting personnel which amounted dereliction of duty. The Commission further directs the Respondent to furnish the Enquiry Report to the Commission within
2 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Furthermore, in exercise of the powers vested in the CIC under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission directs that the Public Authority should compensate the Appellant by an amount of Rs.5000/- for the inconvenience caused to him. Accordingly, the Respondent should ensure that this amount is remitted to the Appellant by demand draft/pay order, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
Page 3 of 8The Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a fresh Notice for Hearing to all the parties concerned after two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The matter is, hereby, adjourned.
HEARING on 11.11.2021:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant Shri Naresh Mokate, attended the hearing through audio conferencing.
Respondent: The respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj, Superintendent of Post Offices, attended the hearing through audio conferencing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI application and referring to his written submissions and informed that he has received a cheque of amount Rs. 5000/- from the respondent as compensation as a result of the CIC order but he had not encashed it yet as the amount of the compensation is very less when compared with the loss he had suffered due to non-delivery and the failure on the part of the Respondent Authority to locate the lost parcel of his which contained important litigation papers regarding him and his family impacting their life and property. He further stated that compensation should be an act of punishment for wilful negligence in the delivery of important public services so that it becomes a lesson to the Respondent authority for playing with trust bestowed on them & delivery by them of the expected public services for which they charge requisite fees. He said the compensation should be a lesson to the Respondent Authority when it comes to discharging duties and protecting public interest and that they should not end up playing with the matters of life and property as a result of their failure to perform their due duty. Further, he asked if his "Registered Parcel" postage containing the important litigation papers is missing and if it is not delivered to the addressee then where is it? He said this question still remains an unsolved mystery and if it is not delivered then he would want it back in the same nicely wrapped condition, (with to & from - addresses written on it along with written "confidential" & "important Page 4 of 8 documents" on top of envelope), as he had given to them (at the time of posting the same). He further said the important litigation papers in the lost parcel can also be misused against him and prove fatal to him and who will take responsibility for that. He specified that the the parcel contained important documents, evidence, proofs & police inquiry reports along with medical documents from medical expert doctor authorities with a petition addressed to the President of India with description of the damage he and family had suffered and his family at the hands the Senior Superintendent of the Govt Hospital and important prayers for protection under the fundamental right to his and his family's life & liberty and also sought punishment for the culprits who had caused him damage. He said he had been waiting for the last three years to get the lost parcel which contained the originals of the documents he had enclosed. He said the loss of the most crucial parcel had caused mental trauma to him beyond imagination and he sought a much higher compensation then RS 5,000 awarded by the commission.
The respondent reiterating the Appellant's previous submissions and referring to their own written submissions stated that Shri Naresh Mokate booked a registered Parcel addressed to Hon'ble President of India on 19.11.2018 at Aurangabad Head Post office. Further, the article was dispatched by Aurangabad Head office and as per the tracking report, the article was further dispatched by Aurangabad Head office to Aurangabad Parcel Hub on 19.11.2018. Thereafter, the article was received at Delhi Parcel Hub on 21.11.2018 and subsequently received at the Bawana Sub Post office on 21.11.2018. As the article was not to be delivered from Bawana SO as such the article was returned to CRC Delhi Sorting. Thereafter, as per the report of CPIO, Delhi Sorting Division, the article was further dispatched to Jalgaon on 30.11.2018. As per the report of Sr. P M Aurangabad HO, the article was not received at Jalgaon SO in Bag no. CBM0004994881IN. Thereafter, the case has been closed on the web treating the article as lost. The respondent also submitted that Shri Naresh Mokate has lodged a web complaint no. 10008961082 on 28.11.2018 and thereafter filed an RTI Application to Sr. PM Aurangabad Head Post Office, wherein the applicant sought information about the action taken on his application/letter/online complaint dated 28.12.2018 Page 5 of 8 regd. Vide no. 10008961082 in respect of article no. CM4081326521N addressed to Hon'ble President of India. Accordingly, the applicant was replied vide this office letter dated 15.01.2019 that the article was not received at Rashtrapati Bhawan Post office for delivery till 11.01.2019 and as per SAP tracking the article shows that the bag was received at Jalgaon Parcel Hub on 30.11.2018, and accordingly the concerned CPIO was advised to provide the disposal of the article to the applicant. Thereafter the applicant filed an appeal to the first appellate authority and the same was decided by the first appellate authority on vide Order dated 08.04.2019 with the direction that this office has provided the available information to the appellant and transferred the case to Incharge Jalgaon Parcel Hub for the disposal and the concerned CPIO was also suitably directed to provide the factual position to the appellant. Furthermore, the applicant Shri Naresh Mokate filed an appeal to Hon. CIC and the same was decided with Interim Decision vide order no. CIC/POSTS/A/2019/118136-UM-Interim dated 27.05.2021 and directing the Respondent Authority to compensate the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 5000/- for the inconvenience caused to him. Further, the respondent was directed to ensure that this amount is remitted to the appellant by demand draft/pay order, within 30 days. Thereafter, a demand draft no. 230777 dated 28.06.2021 of State Bank of India for Rs. 5000/ in the name of the appellant was sent to him. The respondent also informed that compliance of order no. CIC/POSTS/A/2019/118136-UM¬Interim dated 27.05.2021 has been made to Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi-110067, by Assistant Director (PG), O/o CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi along with inquiry report vide letter no. PG/RIA/B-II-46/2019 dated .06.2021.
Moreover, the respondent further stated that as per provisions in Departmental Rule 170 of Post Office Guide Part-I compensation up to the limit of Rs. 100/- in case of loss of Inland Registered Article is permissible and as per Section 6 of Post Office Act-1898, Department is exempted from liability for loss, misdelivery, or damage. The Post Office Act-1898, Section 6, speaks as under:
"The /Government) shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in sor far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the Post Page 6 of 8 Office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default."
Lastly, the respondent informed that in the instant case, as inquiry report reveals, it appears no wilful act, on the part of any official.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and also after perusing the documents available on record, the Commission finds that the information sought has been provided to the appellant and interim order of the Commission also complied with. Moreover, the explanation/enquiry report submitted by the respondent are found reasonable. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach the appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 28.12.2021 Page 7 of 8 Copy to:
The FAA O/o. the Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi- 110001 Page 8 of 8