Central Information Commission
Pradip Narain Prasad vs East Central Railway (Hajipur) on 30 October, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No : CIC/ECRHJ/A/2017/134179
In the matter of:
Pradip Narain Prasad
...Appellant
Vs.
Alok Kumar Jha
Nodal CPIO, Dy. GM (G)
GM Office, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar - 844101.
&
PIO/CMS
East Central Railway
O/o the CMS, Railway Colony,
Samastipur, Bihar - 848101. ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 14.09.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 05.11.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 18.05.2017
Date of hearing : 10.01.2018, 15.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 14.09.2016 sought information on five points; details of the medical reimbursement claims received, date(s) of their receipt, amounts claimed, amounts approved and details of the applicants. The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 18.05.2017.
1Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Dr. D. Chaudhary,
Additional Chief Medical Director cum PIO
along with Dr. Shyamal Das, Chief Health Director cum APIO, East Central Railway, Hazipur During the hearing, the respondent PIO, Vaishali submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 14.09.2016 on 08.11.2016 and transferred the RTI application on 21.11.2016 to the concerned PIO, CMS, Samastipur on 02.12.2016 which is not a valid transfer.
The appellant was not present to plead his case. In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then respondent CPIO, DGM(G), Hazipur and PIO, CMS, Samastipur u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
i. Why the above stated RTI application's transfer was delayed by more than two months.
ii. Why requisite reply was not provided to the appellant in all these years.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent CPIO/PIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order. The present respondent CPIO is to serve a copy of this order to the then respondent CPIO 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 respondent CPIO should note that in case 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.2
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that although the sought for information is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, no reply was furnished to the appellant u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO, CMS, Samastipur is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 15.10.2018
Respondent : Shri Alok Kumar Jha, Dy GM(G) CPIO
Dr Monika Singh, PIO Medical
J.P Gupta, ADSM Hajipur
East Central Railway
A Show Cause notice was issued to the then respondent CPIO,
DGM(G), Hazipur and PIO, CMS, Samastipur u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
iii. Why the above stated RTI application's transfer was delayed by more than two months from its receipt by the respondent authority in the present case.
iv. Why the requisite reply was not provided to the appellant in all these years.
Shri Alok Kumar Jha, the CPIO who attended the hearing at the Commission submitted that the then DGM(G) was Shri Subodh Kumar who is presently posted in the Railway Board as Dy Director (Bridge and Structure). He also submitted that the present hearing notice was served to the then DGM(G), Shri 3 Subodh Kumar and not on him. He further submitted that the present RTI application dated 14.09.2016 was received in the office on 21.09.2016 and vide letter no. ECR/Adm/RTI Act/8983 dated 26.09.2016 it was transferred to the then PIO (Medical), Samastipur Division. That the first appeal dated 05.11.2016 was received in the office on 16.11.2016 and the same was also transferred to the then FAA (Medical), Samastipur Division vide letter no. ecr/Adm/RTI Act/2005/Appeal/213/2016 dated 21.11.2016.
The then CMS, Dr Monika Singh was present in person at the hearing before the Commission and she submitted that the requisite reply was provided on 17.05.2017 to the appellant. She further submitted that the grievance relating to the medical reimbursement of the appellant was also redressed and in the light of this, the showcause notice issued may be withdrawn.
Decision:
Based on submission and on perusal of records, it was noted by the Commission that the said RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act on 26.09.2016 to the then PIO (Medical), Hazipur and Samastipur, and subsequently the first appeal memo which was submitted by the appellant was also transferred on 21.11.2016. The transfer was as per the RTI Act. Hence, the then DGM(G) was not responsible for the lapse in delaying the provisioning of the requisite reply to the appellant. However, the fact remains that the then PIO (Medical), Samastipur had not replied to the said RTI application from 26.09.2016 to 17.05.2017.
A copy of e-mail dated 08.10.2018 submitted by the appellant was also placed on record in which the appellant acknowledged the receipt of complete information and also stated that his medical reimbursement bill was paid. He requested for closure of the case.
The Commission took note of the fact that the appellant's grievance has since been redressed. However for the delay, the then PIO (Medical), 4 Samastipur is issued a warning to be careful in future while dealing with RTI applications.
A strict warning is issued against Shri Subodh Kumar, the then PIO who is presently posted in the Railway Board as Dy Director (Bridge and Structure) for not attending Commission's hearing. Shri Alok Kumar Jha shall serve the copy of this warning to Shri Subodh Kumar and inform the Commission about the service of the warning to Sh. Subodh Kr Jha within a maximum period of 10 days from the receipt of the order.
With the above observation, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय) Information Commissioner ( सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 5