Central Information Commission
O P Khurana vs Northern Railway on 9 October, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/NRAIL/A/2016/303976
In the matter of:
O P Khurana
...Appellant
Vs.
Shri Om Prakash,
Sr. DMM. Nodal Officer,
Northern Railway State Entry Road,
Delhi-110055 ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 05.03.2016
CPIO reply : 04.04.2016
First Appeal : 06.07.2016
FAA Order : 03.08.2016
Second Appeal : 26.08.2016
Date of hearing : 08.09.2017, 27.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant sought information on 4 points regarding action taken on his son Dr Ashish Khurana's complaint for refund etc. The CPIO provided an interim reply on 04.04.2016. The appellant being aggrieved filed first appeal on 06.07.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 03.08.2016 disposed of the first appeal. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission on 26.08.2016.
Grounds for the second appeal The CPIO did not provide the information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : CPIO, Ms. Rani Vats, SCM
During the hearing the respondent CPIO submitted that they had provided the interim reply on 04.04.2016 and subsequent replies dated 18.04.2016 and 29.04.2016.
1The appellant submitted that he had not received any final reply till date. He further submitted that on point nos. 1,2 and 3 of the above stated RTI application , no final reply was provided to him and in regard to the point 4 of the said RTI application, he was satisfied with the information. The appellant submitted that he had still not received the letter dated 29.04.2016 and that no reply was provided in regard to point nos. 1 and 3 of the above stated RTI application till the date of the CIC hearing.
In regard to the point no. 2, the appellant submitted that the reply of Dy.CMM, Northern Railway HQs., New Delhi stated as "no separate letter is issued for forwarding the ticket and application by SS/NZM''. The appellant submitted that this cannot be true because no case can be submitted to a higher office for decision simply by sending some case papers. There is always a covering letter regarding the proposal/points which are to be decided by the higher authority. In the absence of such a covering letter as claimed by the respondent above, the appellant strongly contested the veracity of the reply.
The present Dy.CMM, NR is to submit an affidavit affirming the reply given by the then CPIO as mentioned above. A copy of the affidavit is to be submitted to the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of the order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period.
The appellant submitted that there was no order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in regard to his first appeal dated 06.07.16 and he had not received any reply in the regard to point nos. 1,2 and 3 of the said RTI application. The PIO submitted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had disposed of the appeal vide its order dated 16.08.16.
Since the appellant submitted that he had not received the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO and Sr. DMM, NR, DRM office, New Delhi is ordered to provide a copy of the order dated 16.08.16 to the appellant within 07 days of this order under intimation to the Commission.
On the basis of the submission of the parties and the papers/documents submitted earlier and during the hearing, it transpired that after Sec 6(3) 2 transfer of item nos. 1 and 3 on 04.04.16, no reply whatsoever was sent by the sendee i.e. the office of the DRM to the appellant in all these years. What was noticed by the Commission that the office of the DRM wrote a letter on 29.4.16 stating that the copy of the RTI application was not received by CCM (refund) while transferring this case u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that this letter was never received by him. It is also submitted that PIO, DMM had made sincere efforts to make the payment amounting to Rs. 2960/- which was transferred to his account vide cheque no. 920280 dated 29.7.16 and this was conveyed to the appellant by Dy. CO and PIO vide letter dated 17.8.16. However, all these actions are meaningless when the reply to the points raised in the RTI application was not furnished within the time limit as stipulated under section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
On perusal of the case record, it is seen that respondent CPIO claimed in its reply on point no. 2 that the relevant records were not available. He is to submit an affidavit on this point. Information on point nos. 1 and 3 of the said RTI application was not provided and the then respondent PIO Sr. DMM, Shri Om Prakash is responsible for such lapse. In view of the fact that reply u/s 7(1) was not provided by the agency to whom the RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, the then PIO, DMM is primarily held responsible.
A Show Cause Notice is issued to the then CPIO/PIO, Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DMM u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
i. After the receipt of the above stated RTI application dated 4.4.16 from the office of the CCM(refund), Northern Railway why reply u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act was not provided to the appellant? ii. in case such reply was taking some time as it involved coordination with some other agencies, at least some interim reply could have been provided which was not done. Why?
iii. in case during the said transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, the copy of the said RTI application was not found enclosed as mentioned above, why the said RTI application was not sought personally 3 from the office of CCM to whom the RTI was originally addressed?
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 the 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 explanation within the above stipulated time, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided on point nos. 1 and 3 of the above stated RTI application, the respondent, Sr. DMM and PIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
The respondent PIO 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 directions, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 27.09.2018
Respondent : Shri Om Prakash, Sr DMM cum CPIO
Shri Om Prakash submitted that the RTI application dated 05.03.2016 had been received in their office on 18.03.2016 vide ACM/Claims letter no. Claim/RTI/657/O.P Khurana/03/16 dated 16.03.2016. The same had been transferred to the CPIO cum Sr DCM/New Delhi on 21.03.2016 for furnishing the requisite reply to the appellant. The Sr. DCM/DLI had transferred the same application again to the CCM/Refunds, vide application 12CT-17/RTI/16 dated 4 23.03.2016. A letter no. Dy.CCM/Claims-1 cum CPIO on 04.04.2016 had been received by this office and same has been transferred to the CPIO cum Sr. DCM/New Delhi on 08.04.2016 for necessary reply as desired because of the fact that the relevant information pertained to the CPIO cum Sr. DCM/New Delhi. The Sr. DCM/DLI had asked for a copy of the complaint from the applicant vide letter no. 12CT-17/RTI-16 dated 07.04.2016.
As information pertained to the CPIO cum Sr DCM/New Delhi, interim reply should at least have been given by CPIO cum Sr DCM/New Delhi as observed by Commission.
As information pertained to CPIO cum Sr DCM/New Delhi, CPIO cum Sr. DCM/New Delhi should have sought desired information personally from the CCM office as observed by Commission.
Decision :
From the above explanation and on the basis of submission of the Sr DMM during the hearing, it transpires that the then Sr. DCM, Shri Hemendra Kumar is responsible for the above lapses. He is accordingly issued strict warning to be more careful in future while dealing with RTI applications.
The present Sr. DMM shall serve a copy of this warning to the then Sr. DCM under intimation to the Commission within 7 days from the receipt of this order.
With the above warning, the showcause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the 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 कु मार तलपा ) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date 5