Central Information Commission
Rukmini Devi vs East Central Railway (Hajipur) on 18 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ECRHJ/C/2023/606034 & CIC/MORLY/A/2023/617967
RUKMINI DEVI ...Complainant/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Office of the Sr. Divisional
Railway Manager, East Central
Railway, Dhanbad - 826001.
2. CPIO,
Ministry of Railway, Banaras
Locomotive Works, Varanasi,
UP - 221004. ....प्रनिवािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024
Date of Decision : 18.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
CIC/ECRHJ/C/2023/606034
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 06-01-2023
CPIO replied on : 17-01-2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.02.2023.
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06-01-2023 seeking the following information:
"I Rukmini Devi W/O Ram Jatan Pathak here by want to state that kindly furnish information Details Regarding the matter as I mention below:- (1) How many years copy of Service book & Pension payment order kept Safe as per Rule (2) Kindly Provide me complete Details of the Departmental action to Taken If the Service book or pension payment order is Lost or Destroyed Kindly provide me the details along with all the information Under RTI ACT 2005.
AS per section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 in case the requested information is held by another public authority I requested the PIO TO Transfer the application or part of it within FIVE days and immediately inform me about such transfer. As per section 7(8)(iii) and 7(3)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005 I requested the PIO to inform me of the first Appellate Authority."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 17-01-2023 stating as under:
"1. Reply has already been made vide this office letter no. 47/DHN/PEN/RTI/RD/2023, Dt. 06.01.2023.
2. Reply has already been made vide this office letter no. 47/DHN/PEN/RTI/RD/2023. Dt. 06.01.2023."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 19.03.2024:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Shri Ram Prakash Pathak, son and representative of the Complainant, attended the hearing. Respondent: Shri Nuas Topno, ADFM/Dhanbad & CPIO, attended the hearing.
Order dated 22.03.2024 The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 22.03.2024:
"In case file No. CIC/ECRHJ/C/2023/606034 Page 2 of 8 Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. The Commission finds that the Complainant has filed two RTI Applications seeking similar and generic information, one before Northeastern Railway which is replied by Respondent No. 2 i.e., Varanasi office and the second before East Central Railway, which is replied by Respondent No. 1 i.e., Dhanbad Office, but both the offices have provided contradictory replies to the Complainant. In this regard, the Complainant during the hearing has expressed his satisfaction over the reply provided by the Respondent No. 2.
The Commission observes that a misleading reply was given to the Complainant by the Respondent No. 1, with mala fide intent. Therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause notice to Shri Nuas Topno, ADFM/Dhanbad & CPIO, for flouting the provisions of RTI Act. The CPIO shall explain in writing as to why penal action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons.
If the onus of providing misleading reply lies either with a deemed PIO or former/the then CPIO, the present CPIO shall serve a copy of this decision to them and who shall explain in writing as to why penal action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. The written explanation of the erring CPIO should reach the Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In case file No. CIC/MORLY/A/2023/617967:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that a sufficient reply has been provided by the Respondent and the Appellant has also expressed his satisfaction over the same. Hence, no intervention is required in the instant matter."
Relevant Facts emerging during Show-Cause Hearing on 11.07.2024 Page 3 of 8 Complainant: Shri Ram Prakash Pathak, son and representative of the Complainant, attended the hearing through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Nuas Topno, ADFM/Dhanbad & CPIO, attended the hearing through Video-Conference.
The rep. of the Complainant submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to the Complainant. He further submitted that till date PPO of the Complainant has not been generated.
Written explanation of Shri Nuas Topno is taken on record and the relevant extracts is reproduced hereinbelow:
"As the applicant was same and query of the applicant was also same in case of query No.1 of dated 06.01.2023, it was replied connecting the reply given previously to the same query No.1 of dated 31.12.2022. Reply to the current query was also connected to the previous reply, as RTI of dated 06.01.2023, was received on the same date in which reply was sent for RTI related to 31.12.2022.
Query No.2 was related to details of the departmental action to taken if the service book or pension payment order is lost or destroyed, which was similar to the previous query No.4 of RTI dated 31.12.2022, it was also connected with the reply given previously. As the query was related to departmental action taken, it was replied regarding departmental action taken in case of loss of pension payment order, where correspondence with the bank was made. As there was no case for loss of service record, nothing was replied on this score. Further, no such rules exits for such departmental action, accordingly reply was given considering action taken by this office in such cases Further, as the applicant was making regular correspondence in regard to her pension to this office, reply was given duly considering the context of the applicant. Moreover, reply of Varanasi office is more or less in line with this office reply however it was generic but this office reply was specific, as it was based considering the case of the applicant.
In light of the above, it is kindly submitted that this office has never failed to comply with the directives of the rules of Right to Information. All the applications received on account of RTI are disposed at the earliest by this office, duly complying the guidelines of the RTI.Page 4 of 8
I submit humbly that I have never tried to give misleading reply to the applicant due to case being considered specifically reply was accordingly which I have explained above.
2. As far as the complain of the pensioner, raised during bearing, that she is still alive and service book has been lost by the Railway. Apart from above the representative of complainant also stated that his PPO has not been revised for 5th & 6th CPC and benefit thereof was still not given.
In this regard, the earnest submission is as follows: The claim of representative of complainant that service record is lost, is not factual and same is still available with Railway. Secondly, his claim that the benefit of 5th and 6th CPC has not been given is also not factual. The Xerox copy of 5th CPC Revision Sheet, 6th CPC Revised PPO and 7th CPC Revised PPO are attached herewith and marked Annexure-'E'(page from E-1 to E-5). In this regard, it is mentioned that due to several correspondences (Xerox Copy of the letters are attached herewith and marked Annexure-'F' page from F-1 to F-6) made by this office to State Bank of India, Centralised Pension Processing Cell, Lucknow HAT Building, 1"& 2nd floor, Lucknow-226010 (Uttar Pradesh) for payment of revised family pension as per 5th CPC to Smt. Rukmini Devi family pensioner of this division. Asstt.General Manager, State Bank India, Centralised Pension Processing Cell, Lucknow has also confirmed to this office vide letter No. CPPC-LKO/REV/22-23 date 04-03-2024, that an amount of Rs.1,21,335.00 (Rupees one lakh twenty one thousand three hundred thirty five only) has been paid to Smt. Rukmini Devi as an arrear against revised family pension as per 5th CPC after advise received from East Central Railway, Dhanbad. The Xerox copy of details particulars issued by the bank are enclosed herewith and marked Annexure-'G' page from G-1 to G-5.
Moreover, it is again submitted that the representative of the appellant/complainant raised the claim during CIC hearing held on 19.03.2024 that the appellant (Smt. Rukmini Devi) is still alive and service record has been lost by the Railway. It has also been raised during hearing that PPO has not been revised for 5th & 6th CPC and benefits thereof was still not given. As such the RTI reply was provided to the appellant keeping in view of her own grievance matter. Although reply was provided to the appellant alongwith the copy of the rules.
The Service Record of the appellant's deceased husband Late Ram Jatan Pathak, Ex.MCM under EF/SGRL is available in this office. The appellant may inspect the said Service Record and available relevant records alongwith here representative Page 5 of 8 as per provision of RTI Act, 2005 on any working day, prior fixing a suitable date and time.
That, it is once again most humbly submitted that myself being responsible and duty bound officer cannot even think or dream to violate the directives of RTI Act 2005. I beg unqualified apology for any act of omission or commission, if your honour think so. If any actions and/or omissions of mine has led your honour to believe that there have been any violation of the directives of the RTI Act 2005."
The rep. of the Complainant shows his dissatisfaction with the response given by the Complainant and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to the Appellant and still there is a mismatch between the replies given by Dhanbad and Varanasi. He requested the Commission that original records should be personally called, and the Respondent should be physically present before the Commission to explain the true facts of the case.
Interim Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, notes that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to the Complainant despite directions of the Commission. This approach tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the Commission as it violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly the Commission expresses severe displeasure on the conduct of the Respondent and he is admonished for the same besides being called to show-cause.
The act of the Respondent shows that he does not have any respect towards the RTI Act as well as the Commission. In view of the above, the Commission, in the present case, finds appropriate to invoke Section 18(3) of the RTI Act to inquire into the matter and hereby calls the original records from the Respondent's office related to the information sought by the Complainant in her RTI application. Therefore, CPPC, SBI, Lucknow; PIO, Pension Branch Belkunda, Ajamgarh; Shri Ajeet Kumar, Sr. DPO, Dhanbad and Shri Nuas Topno, ADFM/Dhanbad & CPIO are directed to be personally present before the Commission at New Delhi on 20-08- 2024. The Complainant/Appellant is at the liberty to appear either through Video-Page 6 of 8
Conference or can personally appear before the Commission at New Delhi on the given date. She can also send her authorized representative with appropriate authority letter and any identity proof of the representative.
The Registry of this Bench is directed to issue hearing notice to the Complainant, Respondent and CPPC, SBI, Lucknow; Pension Branch Velkunda, Ajamgarh; Shri Ajeet Kumar, Sr. DPO, Dhanbad and Shri Nuas Topno, ADFM/Dhanbad & CPIO and re-schedule the instant matter on the date mentioned above. The said officials are treated as deemed PIOs in the present case and imposition of penalty on erring PIOs will be decided on next date of hearing.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA who shall ensure that a copy of this order is received by all the above officials. The FAA is further directed to ensure that under all circumstances, the officials bring all original records/documents related to the subject-matter.
The Registry of this Bench is further directed to send complete set of documents along with a copy of this order to the above-mentioned officials.
The instant matter stands adjourned and the Complaint and SCN shall be heard together on the next date.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Dated: 22-03-2024.
Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणि सत्यापिि प्रनि) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy to:
CPPC STATE BANK OF INDIA PCF BUILDING 32, STATION ROAD District: LUCKNOW State: UTTAR PRADESH Pincode - 226001 Pension Branch VELKUNDA POST VELKUNDA BAIJABARI DIST:AZAMGARH, UTTAR PRADESH Pincode - 276122 Shri Ajeet Kumar, Sr. DPO, Dhanbad Office of the Sr. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad - 826001.
FAA Office of the Sr. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad - 826001.
Shri Nuas Topno, ADFM/Dhanbad & CPIO Office of the Sr. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad - 826001.Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)