Central Information Commission
Shri Shripal Jain vs Nwr Hq, Jaipur on 5 February, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001591
Dated February 5, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Shripal Jain
Name of the Public Authority : NWR HQ, Jaipur
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.3.9.09 with the PIO, NWR, Jaipur requesting for the following information:
i) list of recognized Hospitals in Jaipur where the Railway Employees can take treatment.
ii) list of recognized/approved Hospitals where the Railway Employees are referred for treatment by the Railway Hospital/Doctors
iii) list of disease/treatment for which Railway Employees are referred to such approved/recognized Hospitals as referred above which are in your list.
iv) the procedure/rules under which the above railway employees can claim reimbursement of such medical expenses
v) why his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses has not been approved and thus paid till date.
vi) photo copies of contracts with approved/recognized hospitals with railway administration.
Shri Rajeev Singh, PIO replied on 10.9.09 returning the IPO to the Applicant as it was drawn in favour of the wrong payee and requesting him to send the IPO in favour of FA&CAO/NWR, JP. The Applicant submitted the revised IPO requesting the PIO to provide the gazette notification in this respect that IPO should be in the name of FA&CAO or direction issued in this behalf as Railway Board is accepting PIO, Railway Board. Shri Rajeev Kumar, PIO replied on 6.10.09 enclosing the information received from the concerned department. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.12.10.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. Shri Ambarish Kumar Gupta, Appellate Authority replied on 26.10.09 again furnishing point wise information. He also informed the Applicant that the RTI application dt.3.9.09 was addressed to PIO, NWR, Jaipur and received in the O/o Sr.DMO on 10.9.09. While clarifying the issue related to IPOs, he informed the Applicant that 42 pages of information as available are ready and that has already been informed by the PIO vide letter dt.6.10.09 to deposit Rs.84/-. On receipt of the photocopying charges, the PIO provided 42 pages of information. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.2.11.09 before CIC stating that the information that has been provided includes only 32 pages and that they have charged Rs.4/- for photocopying on both sides. He also stated that point 3 has not been touched upon and copies of rule under which railway employees can claim reimbursement have not been provided to him. The procedure in vogue is also missing. He further added that point 5 has been fully ignored and his bills are still pending payment with the Department. He stated that he is a patient of septicemia and is passing his last days and an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs is pending with railways for reimbursement and requested the Commission to issue directions for release of the amount.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 5, 2010
3. Shri Rajeev Singh, PIO, Dr.ashok Ram, Dy.CMD, Dr.Raj Kumar, Sr.DMO and Shri M.K.Sharma, APIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that one out of 3 medical bills of the Appellant has been settled. This bill which was for Rs.1,15,000/- has only been settled for Rs.69,000/- as the rest was not admissible as the Appellant has been taking regular treatment from a private hospital without any approval from the Department. The PIO added that other two bills amounting to Rs.11,000/- and Rs.6,000/- are pending payment since the Appellant has not followed the laid down procedures while submitting the bills for payment although he has been requested to do so. With regard to the Appellant's complaint about charging for 42 pages of information when only 32 pages were provided, the Respondent averred that as per RTI Act the photocopying charges per page are Rs2/- Accordingly photocopying charges for 42 pages of information (including both sides of the pages ) have been recovered from the Appellant. With regard to agreement entered between railways and private hospitals, the Respondent stated that attested copies of Memorandum of Under standing have been provided to the Appellant. He further reiterated that information was provided on 6.10.09 and after the applicant deposited the requisite amount, further information was provided on 21.10.09. As for the information against point 3, he stated that the same was furnished on 30.9.09.
6. The Commission on perusal of the submissions on record and after hearing the Respondents holds that complete information has been provided to the Appellant and that the Applicant's complaint that the agreements have not been provided on non judicial stamp paper of Rs 100/- is not maintainable as the Agreements are in the form of MOUs and have not been drawn up on stamp paper . The Appellant is advised to fill up the proforma as per procedures laid down, and submit the same to the Public Authority for their consideration with regard to reimbursement of 2 of his medical bills amounting to Rs 11000/ and Rs 6000/-.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Shripal Jain S/o Late Shri R.S.Jain R/o 4-B, Kabir Marg Banipark Jaipur
2. The PIO North Western Railway Headquarter Office Hasanpura Road Jaipur
3. The Appellate Authority North Western Railway Headquarter Office Hasanpura Road Jaipur
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2009/001604 Dated February 5, 2010 Name of the Applicant : Shri Subhash Pachori Name of the Public Authority : NWR HQ, Jaipur Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.9.6.08 with the PIO, NWR Jaipur requesting for information against 2 points with regard to his earned leave for the period Sept.1973 to December 1995 while working as Signal Inspector at Bombay Division and for the period 1.1.1996 to Feb.1998 while working as Signal Inspector at Signal Construction Wing at Jaipur Division The CPIO & Sr.DPO, Mumbai Central replied on 26.6.08 informing him that leave particulars for the period 1973 to 1995 have been sent to Jaipur Division and hence the same are not available with him and requested the Applicant to obtain the information from the Jaipur Division. In response to the first appeal dt.29.7.08 (Copy not enclosed), Shri Naresh Malhan, Appellate Authority vide his order dt.20.8.08 directed the nodal officer to provide the information within 10 days of receipt of his order. Accordingly information was provided by the PIO Jaipur Division vide letter dt.12.11.08. Still not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.1.7.09 before CIC stating that the reply given by ADRM, Jaipur vide letter dt.12.11.08 is not satisfactory as the information sought by him was regarding the balance of leave.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 5, 2010
3. Shri Rajeev Singh, PIO, Shri R.S.Parihar, DPO, Shri Y.P.Sami, ASTE, Shri S.L.Rathore, ADFM and Shri M.K.Sharma, APIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent, Shri Rajeev Singh submitted that the Applicant's contention is that he has been paid for only 135 days and that leave encashment for 165 days is still pending. He added that instead of submitting a representation in this regard, the Appellant has preferred to redress his grievance by appealing to the Commission .
6 The Commission after hearing the Respondent , under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, directs the PIO to look into the matter of the balance of leave and pending payment and to provide him an appropriate reply by end March, 2010, under intimation to the Commission.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Subhash Pachori H.No.57-A, Shivaji Nagar BuddhaSingh Pura Sheopur Sanganer Jaipur
2. The PIO North Western Railway Headquarter Office Hasanpura Road Jaipur
3. The Appellate Authority North Western Railway Headquarter Office Hasanpura Road Jaipur
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/C/2010/000044 Dated February 5, 2010 Name of the Applicant : Dr.Gurjit Kaur Name of the Public Authority : Medical Council of India Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.27.7.09 with the PIO, MCI requesting for the following information:
i) Whether the MD degree obtained in the year 1990 from Panjab University, Chandigarh is recognized by MCI or not
ii) Whether a person holding a MD degree from Panjab University is eligible as per MCI recruitment rules to be recruited as a faculty of any department of Govt. Medical Colleges and Hospitals as a undergraduate and postgraduate teacher
iii) To provide MCI Inspection report of GMCH-32, Chandigarh for the year 1999-
2000 and 2000-2001 to start PG MD courses at GMCH-32, Chandigarh. Ms.Madhu Handa, Asst. Secretary replied on 2.9.09 requesting the Applicant to provide the nomenclature of the degree for which the information is desired and also to intimate the course for which the information is desired. She requested the Applicant to pay Rs.80/- @ Rs.2/- per page for the 40 pages containing the inspection report. She also informed the Applicant that as per minimum qualification for teachers in medical institutions Regulations 1998, 'Medical teachers in all medical colleges except the Tutors, Residents, Registrars and Demonstrators must possess the requisite recognized postgraduate medical qualification in their respective subject and teach/research experience prescribed therein. The Applicant then filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 23.9.09 informing him that the nomenclature of the degree is MD in Gynecology, and the year is 1988-1990, and it is from Panjab University. Ms.Madhu Handa, Asst. Secretary replied on 23.10.09 requesting the Applicant to intimate the name of the college from where the degree has been obtained. She further added that MD by nomenclature i.e. MD in Gynecology is not included in the schedule in the IMC Act, 1956. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.19.11.09 before CIC stating that despite submitting Rs.150/- she has not received any documents nor clarification on whether the MD degree in Obstetrics and Gynecology from Panjab University for the year 1988 - 1990 is recognized by MCI or not.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 5, 2010.
3. Shri J.S.Bhasin, Retainer represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that there was a lapse on the part of the RTI section in MCI when it failed to register the Rs.100/- paid by the Appellant for the inspection report and he expressed his regrets for the same. According to him the fact that the Applicant had paid the amunt only came to light on receipt of the copy of the second appeal along with the hearing notice, from the Commission on 3.2.10. He assured the Commission that the inspection report would be sent immediately. He also stated that the Appellant has not provided the name of the college from where the Degree has been obtained as under a University there is always a possibility that some are recognized and some not recognized He, however, added that taking note of the fact the Appellant has mentioned GMCH-32, Chandigarh, he assumes that she is interested in information about Degree from the Government Medical Collge/Hospital, Chandigarh and once again assured the Commission that information would be provided on this assumption as the Appellant had failed to furnish the name of the College. 6 The Commission accordingly directs the PIO to provide information sought by the Appellant about the status of MD Degree obtained from Panjab University along with the attested copy of the inspection report of GMCH-32, Chandigarh.
7. The information should reach the Appellant by 5.3.10 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 11.3.10.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Dr.Gurjit Kaur House No.109 Sector-15/A Chandigarh Punjab
2. The PIO Medical Council of India Pocket - 14, Sector - 8 Dwarka, Phase I New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority Medical Council of India Pocket - 14, Sector - 8 Dwarka, Phase I New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/AD/A/2010/000070 Dated February 5, 2010 Name of the Applicant : Shri Yogeshwar Saini Name of the Public Authority : National Board of Examinations Background
1. The Applicant filed a RTI application dt.8.8.09 with the PIO, NBE requesting for information against 6 points with regard to Theory examination in the subject of DNB(Orthopaedics) June 2009(Final).Capt.K.Paul James, PIO replied on 5.10.09 stating that the RTI application was received on 12.8.09 and involves collating information from the Records Section, Confidential Section and Examination Section and that he has strived hard to provide the desired information and requested the Applicant to appreciate the fact that NBE has been seized with the activities of conduct of DNB examinations, evaluation of DNB CET and final examinations, declaration of results, conduct of the Forthcoming Foreign Medical Graduates Examinations for which there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of applications up to the tune of 100%. He further added that besides being the PIO of NBE, he has also been entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of Asst. Director (MCQ) Section and Vigilance Officer. The MCQ Section currently has the peak work load during the months of June and September 2009 and requested that delay be condoned. He also provided point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.10.10.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the reply furnished by the PIO is incomplete and unsatisfactory as information sought against points 4, 5 and 6 has been denied under the pretext that information is not available with NBE.
Dr.A.K.Sood, Appellate Authority replied on 5.11.09 stating that as for points 4 and 5, the Question papers (I to IV) for DNB Final Theory (Orthopaedics) have been set by respective Examiners and as per the records available in the office of NBE, information on any particular question that appeared in the final theory (Orthopaedics) examination of June 2009 is not available with NBE. He also provided the detailed clarification against point 6 of the RTI application. Dr.A.K.Sood vide his letter dt.10.11.09 to the applicant also enclosed an online counseling form which will help the subject matter expert in Orthopedics to answer any queries. He also stated that in case the Applicant desires a meeting with the subject matter expert for personal counseling, the same can also be fixed whereby candidate can seek all the clarifications personally and that a one day CME for DNB candidates on how to attempt theory questions in examination is also being held on 14.11.09 at the Department of Surgery, Safdarjung Hospital. Candidates can come to attend the same where the subject matter experts would answer the queries related to theory examination. The Appellate Authority also enclosed a list of DVDs related to orthopedics examination. However, still not satisfied, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.12.11.09 before CIC
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for February 5, 2010.
3. Capt. K.Paul James, PIO and Dr.Rakesh Gosain, Stdg. Counsel represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was heard through audio conferencing, partly while the Respondents were present and partly after they left due to faulty lines Decision
5. The Respondent Capt.K.Paul James vide his rejoinder dt.3.2.10 to the Commission submitted that the present RTI application is mainly focused on the DNB Final Theory Examination Question Paper I and III of June 2009. The Paper I allegedly contained a single error i.e. the question No.9 of the paper had wrongly mentioned the word 'Focal' as 'Facial' , which is a typographical error and in Paper III, question 4, the word 'radius' was missing inadvertently. He added that the correction of alleged typographical mistakes in question papers are not intentional mistakes and these typing mistakes are inadvertent and to appreciate the mistake it has to be appreciated that NBE is conducting PG and Post PG level examinations in more than 54 specialties besides other examinations and their respective practical examinations. He further added that at the time of drafting of question paper it is the examiners, moderators and typists who are aware of the contents and the same is highly confidential activity and no unassociated person is permitted to even interact with them during the said activity. If the question papers are made to undergo the 'proof reading' a new layer of persons will have to be created and the chances of paper leakage increase. He also added that in almost more than 54 x 4 papers(conducted on the same day) only two alleged mistakes have been reported. Ordinarily the mistakes are never found in question papers but in case the same are found then the Centre Supervisors and Appraisers are the key persons to contact NBE control room and corrective measures are suggested instantly as has been done in the instant case. He further added that NBE came to know of the mistake and the Centre Supervisors and Appraisers at all the examination centres had categorically announced and rectified this mistake at all the centers at the beginning of the examination. He also added that not a single representation/grievance/complaint has been received by the NBE in respect of these insignificant typographical errors from any of the candidates. In question 4 of paper III, it is alleged that the term 'radius' was missing. However, the said omission was also duly rectified and announced at the centre itself. Without prejudice to aforesaid he admitted submitted that even otherwise, the question without the term 'radius' is correct. He further added that during a sample randomized survey conducted on 3.2.10 it has been found that in the said question 9 of paper I, the candidates have scored 2nd highest average marks and the pass percentage of June 2009 is the third best from among the last 8 examinations.
6. The Respondent, Shri Gosain further submitted that prior to 10.7.09 marks were not disclosed and after that marks are being disclosed. He stated that separate sheet is being maintained for each candidate and there are 59 x 4 mark sheets which need to be collated as the marks during that period were not maintained in the format as sought by the Appellant. The Appellant who was heard over the phone stated that information against point 6 was not provided and that against 4 and 5 no information has been furnished under the pretext that it is not available. He insisted that information against point 6 is of great importance to him. The Respondent submitted that even though information sought against 4 and 5 are not as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, however, the Appellate Authority provided detailed clarification vide his order dt.5.11.09. He further added that the marks obtained are not available center wise and that any candidate can retrieve his marks now from the website after entering his Roll Number.
7. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, holds that information sought in points 4 and 5 of the RTI application is not 'information' as defined in the RTI Act as the Appellant is seeking medical details on the subject of Orthopaedics which can be obtained from any text book. However, the PIO is directed to provide attested copies of the mark sheets of selected candidates in the form in which they exist, to the Appellant. With regard to point 6 , the PIO to provide information as sought by the Appellant, if available on record. If not, an affidavit may be furnished to the Appellant informing him about its non-availability. A copy of the PIO's reply dated 3.2.2010 may also be furnished to the Appellant.
8. The information should reach the Appellant by 5.3.10 and the Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 12.3.10.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Yogeshwar Saini H.No.70-C, Taylor Road Amritsar Punjab
2. The PIO National Board of Examinations PSP Area Sector-9 Dwarka New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority National Board of Examinations PSP Area Sector-9 Dwarka New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/OP/A/2009/000327 -AD CIC/OP/A/2009/000331 -AD Dated 5th February, 2010 Name of the Applicant : MR. DILIP KUMAR SARKHEL Name of the Public Authority : NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 6.1.09 with the Divisional Railway Manager, N F Railway, Alipurduar regarding appointment of his son as clerk based on Supreme Court verdict 4993 dated 12.08.08. The Applicant again wrote to the CPIO, N F Railway, Maligaon dated Nil requesting him to provide the information against his RTI Application dated 10.09.08 and also against application submitted earlier on 05.07.08 to DPO/A(D) regarding dispatch and receipt particulars of his letter dated 22.02.98 and also regarding a grievance matter submitted to the CPO, N F Rly regarding inclusion of his appeal in the Pension Adalat. The application according to the Applicant was forwarded to DPO /A(D) vide GM(P)'s letter dated 11.09.08 to be included in the pension Adalat on 15.12.08. He wanted to know the result /decision of the Pension Adalat in this connection. The APO from Office of the Divisional Railway Manager (P), Alipurduar Junction forwarded the application to CM/APO on 09.03.09 with a request to provide the information directly to the Applicant. The PIO, Mr. Kindu Ram, Dy. GM(G) replied on 23.03.09 to the Applicant enclosing the information received from the dealing branch. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 10.04.09 before the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply from the Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed his Second Appeal before the Commission on 25.05.09 requesting relief from the Commission in terms of payment of all dues to him right from 01.05.08 to 30.09.04 and also fixation of pay, seniority, promotion etc from 27.11.1965. The Commission received a rejoinder dated 04.02.2010 from the PIO, NF Railway, Maligaon stating that the Applicant's First Appeal is basically pertaining to redressal of grievance which is not within the purview of RTI Act, 2005 and that the Applicant has approached the CAT/ Kolkata and High Court of Calcutta fifteen times and the High Court has decided in favour of Railways.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 5th February, 2010 through video conferencing.
3. Mr. Khindu Ram, PIO and Mr. Alok Dave, Appellate Authority representing the Public Authority were present at NIC studio, Guwahati.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the RTI application was received by the Public Authority on 12.1.09 and was transferred to PIO Alipurduar Division of N.F. Railway and the response was given by the CPIO on 23.3.09 to the Appellant. The Appellant then filed his first appeal on 10.4.09 which was disposed off by the First Appellate Authority on 8.6.09 . The delay in furnishing of reply by the FAA was due to the transfer of the First Appellate Authority . The Respondent also objected to the use of unparliamentary language by the Appellant in his application. The Commission while warning the Appellant to refrain from using such language in future holds that complete information has been provided. As for the relief sought from the Commission in terms of directing the Public Authority to pay the Appellant his dues, the same does not fall within the ambit of RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.
6. The PIO is directed to showcause why a penalty of Rs.250- should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information within the stipulated period of one month The response to reach the Commission by 10 March,2010
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off (Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sarkhel C/o Postmaster, Badu Kolkata.
2. The PIO Northeast Frontier Railway General Manager's Office Maligaon Guwahati - 11.
3. The Appellate Authority Northeast Frontier Railway General Manager's Office Maligaon Guwahati - 11.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/SG/A/2009/001163 -AD Dated 5th February, 2010 Name of the Applicant : MR. NARAYAN LAL KARN Name of the Public Authority : NORTEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 01.04.08 with Dy. GM(G) cum PIO, NF Rly, Maligaon stating that some records prepared by then CVI (T)/HQ after a decoy check on 30.12.96 at Guwahati Rly Station, indicated that Rs.13/- were found extra with him and confiscated that amount. According to the Applicant, the CVI(T)/HQ must had followed the instruction of rule 2429 (a) of IRCM, and remitted that confiscated amount Rs.13/- to railway cash office. He added that a case had been initiated against him vide DCM/LMG's SF/5 dated 15.01.98. He requested for a photo copy of the record of cash remittance of Rs.13. The PIO replied on 19.05.08 enclosing the reply received from the concerned department dated 06.05.08. In this letter Dy.
CVO/T stated that the DAR case in connection with the Applicant the then Hd.TC/GHY was carefully studied and it was found that he showed Rs.13/- excess in his private cash during check on 30.12.1996. The excess cash Rs.13/- was not taken over by Vigilance team from the Applicant by the then Hd. TC/GHY on 30.12.96. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 27.06.08 requesting for the information and insisting that penalty be imposed upon the PIO. The Appellate Authority on 04.07.07 informed the Applicant that there is no such power bestowed upon the First Appellate Authority in terms of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 to penalize any one for deviation from defined provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Being still aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed his Second Appeal on 19.12.08 before the Commission stating that on 30.12.96 the Appellant as a commercial staff in the capacity of Head Ticket Collector performed duty from 2 PM at Guwahati Railway Station counter No.10. By about 4 PM a gentleman introduced himself as the Zonal Railway Users and Consumers Committee (ZRUCC) member and sought for accommodation in Air Condition retiring room, and had informed him that he would send the amount through the caretaker after going to the room. The ZRUCC members being a VIP, the Applicant had immediately issued a slip to the care taker of AC retiring room to accommodate this VIP. There after the Applicant remained busy with other passengers. After some time caretaker of the retiring room Mr. Poddar came to the Applicant with an instruction and money from the ZRUCC member. Money consisted currency notes, one Rs.50/- one Rs.20/- and loose Rs.3/- (a total of Rs.73/), with the instruction to issue receipt for AC retiring room for Rs.60/- and to spend the rest Rs.13/- to serve him tea & snacks. The Applicant added that soon after the caretaker departed from the counter with the receipt, suddenly he was accosted by a team of civil clad RPF and vigilance personnel headed by then CVI(T)/HQ, who confiscated all the cash belonging to him and also at the counter. The amount of Rs.13/- naturally was not shown in the records as he had still to go and get the tea and snacks. The Applicant stated that the CVI/T paid no heed to his submission and while declaring Rs.13/- as extra cash found during his check, promptly documented it in his self prepared "cash declaration slip" and Post Check Memorandum" and made him(the Applicant) sign the same under coercion. At that point of time Mr. Poddar the caretaker appeared on the scene and conveyed the displeasure of ZRUCC member. The CVI(T) who got scared immediately returned Rs.13/- to Mr.Poddar, and also Rs.807/- to him along with all the seized records so that he can continue his duty. The Applicant stated that he had no knowledge that the check organized and conducted by CVI(T) was a "Decoy Check". He also did not deposit any cash (Rs.13/-) in the cash office, which is statutory obligation under Rule 2429(a) of IRCM. The Occupation register of the retiring room was replaced the next day for the new year to commence from 01.01.97. The Applicant further added that assuming that there was nothing to worry about, he did not take down the name and address of the ZRUCC member. After 4 weeks, by which time the old occupation register of retiring room was destroyed, he was suddenly placed under suspension from 27.01.97, and was asked to submit his statement about the check conducted by CVI(T) on 30.12.96. The Applicant further submitted that the suspension was revoked on 05.02.97. Thereafter no further reference was made about the incident to him throughout the year 1997. For reasons not known, a major memorandum (SF/5) was framed after an year on 15.01.98 and served to him. In the process, a preliminary enquiry was held after 3 years on 21.01.2000. The enquiry Officer admitted the relevance of care taker Mr. Poddar as his defence witness, since transaction of money with ZRUCC member was done by the him. Further enquiry commenced again after one year, after the death of defense witness Mr. Poddar by a changed Enquiry Officer from 15.02.01.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 5th February, 2010 through video conferencing.
3. Mr. Khindu Ram, PIO and Mr. Alok Dave, Appellate Authority representing the Public Authority were present at NIC studio, Guwahati.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was found in possession of Rs.13/- in excess to his private cash during the decoy check and that the Appellant insists that the cash was not returned to him and that it must have been deposited by the Vigilance officer and is seekng the receipt of deposit of the cash. He also stated that the Appellant was suspended after complete enquiry and as per rules. According to the Respondent, there is no record in the dealing file of Rs.13/- having been taken from the Appellant or deposited any where by the Vigilance officer. Hence no receipt as sought by the Appellant can be furnished to him. The Commission, however, has decided to allow the Appellant to inspect relevant files for the information and directs the PIO to provide the photocopy of the receipt if it exists in any one of them. The inspection to be completed by 10th March. 2010.
6 The appeal is accordingly disposed off (Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Narayan Lal Karn Rly. Qtr. No. DS-12/H Kalibari Colony Guwahati Assam - 781 001.
2. The PIO Northeast Frontier Railway General Manager's Office Maligaon Guwahati - 11.
3. The Appellate Authority Northeast Frontier Railway General Manager's Office Maligaon Guwahati - 11.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/OP/A/2009/000305 -AD Dated 5th February, 2010 Name of the Applicant : MR KAMAKHYA TALUKDAR Name of the Public Authority : NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 16.12.08 with the PIO, N F Railway, Maligaon stating that that he worked as a Head clerk (Bills) under CPO/Maligaon's office. As he was suffering from severe breathing problem he had been under medical supervision in OPD of the central hospital w.e.f. 21.11.08 under Railway prescription No.27660 dated 21.11.08 and his treating physician had been Dr.S. Barla and he was advised rest for seven days and to bring the departmental sick memo. The requisite sick memo was denied to him by his controlling officer and as a consequent thereof, the Railway physician had expressed her reluctance to continue his treatment. Hence he had not other option except to undergo his treatment through a private medical practitioner at Maligaon. In this context he sought information against 3 points, including the reasons for denial of issue of the departmental sick memo in his favour He also queried why he cannot claim reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him on his treatment. The PIO replied on 22.01.09 enclosing the information received from the concerned department dated 01.01.09 stating that as alleged the Applicant was never denied the sick memo. In fact the sick memo was issued on 12.12.08 but none appeared from the Applicant's side to collect the same. He enclosed a copy of the sick memo which was issued in favour of the Applicant, for his perusal. The PIO also added that with regard to points 2 & 3 the information has to be furnished by CMD/MLG. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 27.02.09 stating that the PIO has provided incomplete and misleading information. He stated that the sick memo is not correct. He also stated that against point 3 he was not provided any information. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed his Second Appeal before the Commission on 26.05.09.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 5th February, 2010 through video conferencing.
3. Mr. Khindu Ram, PIO and Mr. Alok Dave, Appellate Authority representing the Public Authority were present at NIC studio, Guwahati.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the information was provided in 2 phases. The first reply was given on 22.01.09 and the second on 11.02.09. He pointed out that with regard to point 2 the Appellant was informed that sick memo was ready but nobody came to collect the same from the Appellant's side. He also stated that after her return to India from her travel outside the country, Dr. Mrs. S. Barla/Sr.DMO had informed the Medical Director, Central Hospital, Maligaon vide her letter dated 02.05.09 that she had never refused to treat the Appellant. She had examined the Appellant on 21.11.08 and had given the initial treatment. He was asked to come for review but he never reported to her thereafter. Hence when the time came for issuing the sick certificate, she had replied that the sick certificate is issued only after production of departmental sick memo. She also stated that she was not under pressure from any senior official regarding the Appellant's treatment. On the basis of history and medical examination she had prescribed the initial medicines.
6. The Commission on reviewing the submissions on record and after hearing the Respondents holds that available information has been provided. However, in order to satisfy the Appellant further, the PIO is directed to allow inspection of all relevant files by the Appellant before 15th March, 2010 and to provide attested copies of documents he requires. As per the information against point 3 related to reimbursement of expenses incurred by him, the Commission holds that this is a grievance matter, and advises the Appellant to approach an appropriate forum for its redressal.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Kamakhya Talukdar Ward No.2 House No.53 Padumbari and Gotanagar Link Road PO - Gotanagar PS - Jalukbari Dist. Kamrup Guwahati.
2. The PIO Northeast Frontier Railway General Manager's Office Maligaon Guwahati - 11.
3. The Appellate Authority Northeast Frontier Railway General Manager's Office Maligaon Guwahati - 11.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC Central Information Commission CIC/OP/A/2009/000082 -AD Dated 5th February, 2010 Name of the Applicant : MR. ALAKH NIRANJAN ROY Name of the Public Authority : NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 24.02.09 with the Sr. DRM (P), N F Railway, Katihar stating that with regard to his appeals dated 19.11.08, 25.11.08 and 26.11.08 he never submitted any appeal for regularisation of pay etc. and that he had always applied for benefits which have been given to his seniors and juniors. He asked why the benefits given to the staff were revised vide letter dated 21.09.2000 when he filed his appeals and requested that he be considered for the same benefits as he is senior to most of the staff who have received such benefits. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 25.03.09 stating that the pay of some seniors and juniors were revised excluding himself on the basis of a Railway Board letter dated 21.09.2000. The Appellate Authority replied on 31.03.09 informing the Applicant that they have already issued a letter dated 05.03.09 through which his IPO was retuned and requested him to send a fresh IPO in favour of the correct payee. Being aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant filed his Second Appeal on 22.05.09 stating that he had s retired from Railway service as Head clerk w.e.f. 01.11.08 from Sr. DRM(P) Kathihar's Office, when he received information regarding stepping up of pay to his juniors and seniors with retrospective effect, as per DRM(P) Katihar's office order dated 09.12.1998. He stated that he had also applied for the said benefits and that on receipt of his appeal for the said benefits the pay of others pay were again revised to their earlier scales and the over payment was recovered from them as per DRM(P) Katihar's letter dated 21.09.2000. In view of this the Applicant wanted to know whether their over payment has actually been recovered or not. If not recovered then he too should be considered for the said benefits which were given to his seniors and juniors.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 6th February, 2010 through video conferencing.
3. Mr. D. Srikant, DCM cum PIO and Mr. B. Misra DCM cum APIO representing the Public Authority were present at NIC studio, Katihar.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the PIO, Katihar had returned the IPO on 05.03.09 to the Appellant with a request to send a fresh IPO in favour of FA & CAO, N.F. Railway, Maligaon since the matter falls under Maligaon jurisdiction. But the Appellant without sending the fresh IPO had filed his First Appeal on 25.03.09 to which the PIO/Katihar replied on 31.03.09 enclosing PIO's reply dated 05.03.09 with request to deposit of the requisite fee. In the meantime without sending the IPO the Appellant had again filed his Second Appeal before the Commission. The Respondent contended that the personal file of an employee who has retired from service is not preserved for more than 3 years after retirement as per extant rules. Hence, since no details are available in respect of the benefits which the Appellant has mentioned in the RTI application, no information could be given on the subject. However, the Respondent expressed his willingness to look into the matter and provide any further information with respect to the Appellant's qualifying pension provided he furnishes details of his pension, so that any allowance which was provided to his juniors and seniors and denied to him can be provided, in the event they are admissible to him. The Appellant is accordingly advised by the Commission to provide such details to the PIO and te PIO to provide the information by end March, 2010.
6 The appeal is accordingly disposed off (Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Alakh Niranjan Roy Road No.13/B Rajender Nagar Patna Bihar - 800 016.
2. The PIO Northeast Frontier Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Katihar, Bihar
3. The Appellate Authority Northeast Frontier Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Katihar, Bihar
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC