Central Information Commission
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs Railway Board on 10 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RAILB/A/2021/137782 +
CIC/RAILB/A/2021/150359
CIC/RAILB/A/2021/138630
CIC/MORLY/A/2022/101679
Shri Dinesh Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
Railway Board Rail Bhawan
Delhi - 110001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:
RTI : 06.03.2021, FA : 26.04.2021, SA : 13.09.2021,
22.03.2021, 03.09.2021, 24.11.2021,
24.02.2021, 12.04.2021, 16.09.2021,
06.09.2021 13.11.2021 12.01.2022
CPIO : 01.04.2021, FAO : 25.06.2021,
23.04.2021, 20.10.2021,
Hearing: 15.02.2022
05.04.2021, 01.06.2021,
18.10.2021 15.12.2021
ORDER
The Commission, vide three orders dated 16.02.2022, in file no. CIC/RAILB/A/2021/137782, CIC/RAILB/A/2021/150359 and CIC/MORLY/A/2022/101679, had directed the CPIO to re- examine the RTI applications and furnish a Suitable and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Commission, vide orders dated 16.02.2022, in file no.CIC/RAILB/A/2021/138630, had directed the CPIO to facilitate the inspection of the Records/Documents, to the Appellant, pertaining to the RTI Application, at a mutually convenient date and time within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directed the CPIO to depute a responsible officer to assist the Appellant during the inspection and facilitate inspection of documents and provide to him copies of selected documents to the Appellant as per the Rule 4 of the RTI Rules, 2012 strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act 2005.
The Appellant vide letter dated 23.03.2022 filed a non-compliance petition before the Commission objecting to the replies dated 22.03.2022&25.03.2022,furnished to him by the Respondent in compliance of the Commission's orders dated 16.02.2022. The Appellant contended that incorrect and misleading information has been provided to him by the CPIO The Commission vide order dated 24.01.2022, decided to hold a hearing in the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Assistant sub Inspector,RPSF, Shri Dinesh Kumar, present in person. Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sagar, DIG, RPSF and Mr. Suresh Gujjar, Sub Inspector with other officials present in person.
The Appellant Assistant sub Inspector, RPSF, Shri Dinesh Kumar,stated that in response to the compliance orders issued by the Commission, the Respondent Ms. Sarika Mohan, DIG, RPSF in her reply dated 22.03.2022 did not provide him the information he had sought. He said that the CPIO had made mockery of the RTI law by providing him wrong information in a case which has a direct bearing on his life and property. He alleged that he was given arbitrary chargesheet on the charge of producing false certificate for seeking transfer from 3BN/RPSF/LKO to 6BN/RPSF/DBSI by claiming that his wife Smt. Minu Devi was employed as Assistant Teacher at a village in Anupshahr Tehsil in Bulandshahr District since 30.05.2015. However, he said after he submitted the certificate to the Respondent Authority of his wife being employed near Bulandshahr as Assistant Teacher with the purpose of seeking his own transfer from Lucknow to Delhi (Bulandshahr is near to Delhi) his wife was reverted to her earlier post of ShikshaMitra in the same Anupshahr Tehsil following a Supreme Court order which restored status quo ante in the case of 1.72 lakh Assistant Teachers of U.P government who were reverted to their earlier post of Shiksha Mitra.
He said he inadvertently forgot to inform the respondent authority about this change of post of his wife which he claimed was wrongly made a ground to serve him a charge sheet by the Respondent authority which finally compulsorily retired him from service 12 years before his date of retirement. He said the action against him was a complete travesty of justice and misuse of power by officials in the Respondent Authority, particularly Ms.Sarika Mohan because there was virtually no break in his wife's service and she continued to be posted in the same tehsil as before even after the change of her job. He said a detailed study of the chronology of events in his case ever since the charge sheet was served on him will leave no doubt in the mind of any honest adjudicator that the Respondent authority and Ms. Sarika Mohan had acted against him with vendetta and had even violated the law in doing so.
He said since she was a senior officer her junior officers were carrying out her command in his case out of fear despite being unconvinced about her action against him. The appellant said if there was a technical error on his part in inadvertently not informing the Respondent authority about his wife's change of job despite the fact that she continued to be posted in the same tehsil, then at the most he could have been given a light punishment. He prayed to the Commission to direct the Respondent authority not to stonewall legitimate information that he was seeking for producing in the court of law to get justice.
The Commission notes that the Appellant, Shri Dinesh Kumar, was in tears while making his submissions before the Commission as he described the hardships that he and his family including his children had faced, and the trauma they had undergone as a result, due to the action against him which he described as 'continuing vendetta' of the Respondent Authority, particularly Ms.Sarika Mohan.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the Commission's order dated 16.02.2022 they have provided a suitable reply to the Appellant on 22.03.2022. He further submitted that the Appellant was punished with compulsory retirement from service for misleading the department by producing wrong certificate of his wife for his personal benefit i.e which is for getting transferred from Lucknow to Delhi. He explained to the Commission that while conducting an inquiry into the charges against Shri Dinesh kumar, it was found that he had produced invalid certificate as his wife was not more holding the post of Assistant Teacher but was employed as Shiksha Mitra.
The Respondent said while pursuing the record/documents, the Respondent Authority came across a certificate issued on 31.08.2019 by Shri Budhsen Singh, Block Education Officer, which categorically and very clearly states that the appointment of Smt. Minu Devi w/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma in the capacity of Assistant Teacher got cancelled on 03.10.2017 and since then Smt. Minu Devi has been working as ShikshaMitra and is being paid stipend rather than a designated salary.
He said it is beyond comprehension that Shri Dinesh Kumar was not aware about the job position of his wife or that his wife did not tell him about the same. The Respondent justified the action against the Shri Dinesh Kumar stating that he had indulged in suppression of the factual information to mislead the administration to seek personal benefit. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent and the Appellant dated 01.04.2022 and 04.04.2022 respectively, which is taken on record.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission observes that the order dated 16.02.2022 of the Commission has not been complied with by the Respondent public authority vide their response dated 23.02.2022 by not furnishing the information which was very important for the Appellant career and which he needs to prove his innocence's before the Hon'ble Court. So, the Respondent is directed to furnish all the information (Certified copies of all correct documents) that the Appellant's has asked in a span of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, strictly in accordance with the objectives of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act. The letter containing the information shall be sent to the Appellant through registered post and a copy of the dispatch proof may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal, The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant to prove his innocence in the court of law was willfully withheld despite the Commission's order by the respondent authority and DIG, RPSF, Ms. Sarika Mohan. Further, Ms. Sarika Mohan's action in recommending compulsory retirement from service for the Appellant was unjustifiable and amounted to on misuse of her authority.
The bureaucrats of Indian civil services belong to the premier service of the nation and therefore are duty bound to serve the country and its citizens in the Nation-First spirit within the framework of law of the land by upholding the spirit of our Constitution. By awarding punishment to a junior officer which is highly disproportionate or even unwarranted and is aimed at ruining the Appellant's career, Ms. Sarika Mohan has acted against this spirit because the Appellant's wife continued to serve in the same Tehsil (Anoopshahr) even after she became a Shiksha Sahayak from an Assistant teacher. Significantly this change in her job too was forced by a Supreme Court order and was not sought by her with the consent of her husband. Thus,under the circumstances the appellant appears innocent of the charge slapped on him by the Respondent Authority. But even if the appellant's failure to inform the Respondent Authority about his wife's change of job is held against him, then too, he deserved a much lighter punishment like withholding of his increment.
Therefore, the Commission directs Ms. Sarika Mohan to explain her misconduct in wilfully withholding the information and acting with a spirit of vendetta and demonstrating misuse of power against the appellant. She may explain as to why a penalty of Rs 25,000/-only (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) should not be imposed on her for her wilful default in this matter in a span of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act. In support of this order the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3574 of 2022 dated 02.05.2022 wherein it was held as under:
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service."
Hence, the Commission further observes that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
The Commission advises the Respondent Authority to give immediate justice to the appellant in the larger interest of principles of justice and further reminds the Respondent that it had given him the same advice at the time of the hearing in this case.
With these directions, the compliants for non-compliance is closed.
(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमा रकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतएवंस यािपत ित) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 दनांक / Date: 10.05.2022