Central Information Commission
Shrikant Prasad vs Northeast Frontier Railway (Guwahati) on 31 August, 2020
CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759
In the matter of:
Shrikant Prasad ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ,
Cum Sr. Divisional Commercial
Manager,
Northeast Frontier Railway,
O/o. the Divisional Railway
Manager (C), ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Alipurduar Junction, West Bengal
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.11.2017 FA : 31.05.2018 SA : 18.12.2018
CPIO : 25.05.2018 &
FAO : 14.06.2018 Hearing : 25.08.2020
20.08.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Shrikant Prasad, heard over the phone.
Respondent: Shri Syed Jahangir, Sr. DPO, Northeast Frontier Railway, Guwahati,
heard over the phone.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 05.11.2017 and sought information on fifteen points which are as follows -
"भारत के सव ायालय म दायर यािचका सं ा (C)82/2011 के स म, सव ायालय ारा रे लवे के टां सफर / पो ं ग के सं बध म िदनाक 31.10.2013 को िदए गए िनणय पर आधा रत रे लवे बोड के प सं ा E(O)III-2014/PL/03 िदनाक 10.06.2014 एवं 07.07.2014 के खंड(IV) के अनुसार अलीपु र ार मं डल के सं केत एवं दू र सं चार िवभाग म काम करने वाले ुप 'सी" र के ऑिफिसयल के टां सफर / पो ं ग की िसफा रश / सलाह के िलए े समट सिमित की गठन के िलए सुझाव िदया गया है ।
1) रे लवे बोड का उपरो आदे श वर मंडल संकेत एवं दू र संचार अिभयंता / वर
मं डल कािमक पदािधकारी अलीपु र ार मं डल को मु कािमक पदािधकारी,
मालीगां व के िकस आदे श सं ा ारा ा िकये गए और उस आदे श के ा
करने की ितिथ सिहत उ आदे श के ऊपर की कायवाही के सारी सूचनाएं
अिभलेख के प म दे ने की कृपा करे ।
2) रे लवे बोड के िदशा िनदश के अनुसार मंडल संकेत एवं दू र संचार के िवभाग के े समट किमटी की गठन की गई है की बैठक वष 2014 म रे लवे बोड के उपरो आदे श ा करने के बाद पहली बार िकस तारीख को की गई और तब से ले कर 2015, 2016, 2017 वष म यानी प िलखे जाने तक कुल िकतनी बार की गई है?
3) ितिथ, महीने और वष सिहत िववरण दे ने की कृपा करे ।"
And other related information.
The CPIO, vide dt. 25.05.2018 alongwith letter dt. 19.04.2018 of Sr. DPO/DCM, responded to the RTI application. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.05.2018. FAA vide order dated 14.06.2018 upheld the CPIO's reply. On 20.08.2020, CPIO furnished a fresh reply alongwith the available information as per the RTI Act to the appellant.
Page 2 of 6CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that although he had received a satisfactory reply from the respondent on 25.08.2020 i.e. after the filing of second appeal, yet there is a delay on the part of respondent in giving reply. He requested the Commission to counsel the CPIO for the delay so caused.
Per contra, the respondent submitted that the RTI application was replied by the CPIO vide letter dt. 25.05.2018 annexing the information provided by the Sr. DPO/DRM vide letter dt. 19.04.2018. The respondent further submitted that a fresh reply was furnished by the CPIO vide letter dt. 20.08.2020. In his reply dt. 20.08.2020, CPIO on point no. 3.1 of RTI application stated that the Rly. Board's letter No.E(O)lll/2014/PU03 dated 10.06.2014, 07.07.2014 & 08.08.2014 had been communicated to the appellant by PS to SDGM/N.F.Rly/Maligaon vide letter dt. 22.08.2014 and vide letter dt. 25.05.2018. On point no. 3.2 of the RTI application, CPIO further stated that a Committee of 03 Officers (ST.DSTE/APDJ, ST.DEN/APDJ & Sr.DPO/APDJ) was constituted on 13.10.2014 in the year 2014 and thereafter, the Committee was modified in the year 2016 on 16.05.2016, consisting of APO/APDJ, ADSTE/APDJ and ADEN/HQ/APDJ. On point no. 3.3 of RTI application, the respondent referring to CPIO's reply dt. 20.08.2020, submitted that the 1st Committee was constituted on 13.10.2014 and 2nd Committee was constituted on 16.05.2016. On point no. 3.4 of the RTI application, Page 3 of 6 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759 he submitted that the designation of members of placement Committee is mentioned in response to point no. 3.2 of RTI's reply but names of Officers cannot be provided as the Committee's member is nominated by designation and not by the names. He further apprised that the officers are regularly being transferred / changed. With regard to point no. 3.5 of RTI application, CPIO in his letter dt. 20.08.2020, answered in negative. On point no. 3.6 of RTI application, CPIO provided the copy of transfer orders. In response to point no. 3.7 of RTI application, respondent again referring to CPIO's reply dt. 20.08.2020, submitted that the CPIO answered in affirmative and submitted that only DRM can over-rule the transfer & posting orders in cases of SC/ST employees. In reply to point nos. 3.8- 3.10 of RTI application, CPIO stated that the information sought as 'Nil'. On point no. 3.11 of RTI application, CPIO stated that all transfer and posting orders had been implemented. On point no. 3.12 of RTI application, CPIO answered in negative that there is no provision issued by Railway Board in this regard. In reply to point no. 3.13- 3.15 of RTI application, CPIO stated that no employee has filed any appeal against the transfer order issued after recommendations of Placement Committee.
Decision-
The Commission after hearing submissions of both the parties, perusal of records and considering the averments of the appellant observes that CPIO replied to the RTI application of the appellant vide his earlier letters dt. 25.05.2018 and 19.04.2018. In the said letters, the CPIO denied to furnish the information on point nos. 3.2- 3.3 of RTI application on the technical grounds which is not a sufficient reason as per the RTI Act. Moreso, in the said letters, the CPIO denied the information sought on point nos. 3.5- 3.15 of the RTI application by quoting the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 22/2009. In this regard, the Page 4 of 6 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759 Commission notes that the ratio of said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not fully applicable to the facts and circumstance of the present case. Though the CPIO provided the available information later on to the appellant vide letter dt. 20.08.2020, but there was a sufficient delay in giving reply by the CPIO as per the RTI provisions.
It is regretful to observe how the CPIOs are having casual approach towards the implementation of the RTI Act .This merely indicates lack of seriousness and a lackadaisical approach towards matters relating to RTI. The Commission takes a very serious view of this lapse and counsels the then CPIO, Shri S. Jahangir, Northeast Frontier Railway, Alipurduar, to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority 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.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 25.08.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/172759 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Cum ADRM Northeast Frontier Railway, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager (C), Alipurduar Junction, Alipurduar District, West Bengal
2. The Central Public Information Officer Cum Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Northeast Frontier Railway, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager (C), Alipurduar Junction, Alipurduar District, West Bengal
3. Mr. Shrikant Prasad Page 6 of 6