Central Information Commission
Vijay Kumar Sharma vs Railway Board on 16 November, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No : CIC/RAILB/A/2017/193645
In the matter of:
Vijay Kumar Sharma
...Appellant
Vs.
Ajay B Thakur
CPIO & DCM, Western Railway, DRM's office,
Do-Batti, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh - 457001. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 26.07.2016
CPIO reply : 15.09.2016
First Appeal : 21.09.2016
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 15.12.2016
Date of hearing : 18.06.2018, 15.10.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 26.07.2016 sought information regarding the conditions of service at Ujjain Railway Station on 16th May 2016 where a stampede like situation had arisen, on five points as under;
1. Information related to the name and designation of staff/officials controlling and handling flashing indicators and announcements from control room that was responsible for flashing reverse position of bogies on 16.05.2016 which had caused stampede like situation on the platforms. Names and designations of erring officials who were responsible for wrong flashing of light and for announcing wrong train numbers were sought.
2. Copy of enquiry report and outcome of the enquiry, if conducted, for the above mentioned mistake, names of erring officials with designation.
Page 1 of 83. Details of information received from the starting point of the train and also the reason for change of sequencing of bogies, names of officials who were responsible for not giving information/ announcement for change in the direction of bogies.
4. Reason for refusal by GRP for filing of FIR(s) against railway staff for creating stampede like situation at Ujjain station (platform no. 4) and also under whose control GRP works i.e. whether it works under the Railways or under the jurisdiction of any other public authority.
5. Copy of the FIR and report on the findings of GRP, the findings of the investigation conducted by the GRP and reason(s) for not sending copy of the FIR by the GRP to the appellant.
The CPIO replied on 15.09.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 21.09.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 15.12.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Avinash Sharma,
Deputy Director cum PIO, Rail Bhawan
Shri R.Y. Joshi,
Deputy Chief Claim Officer cum PIO,
Mumbai
Shri Ajay Thakur,
Divisional Commercial Manager cum PIO,
Ratlam,
Shri D.P. Chauhan,
Deputy Superintendent of Police cum PIO
Page 2 of 8
Bhopal
Shri Aditya Awasthi,
Assistant Security Commissioner cum APIO,
Ujjain
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 15.09.2016. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
The appellant was not present to plead for his case. The respondent APIO further submitted that the said RTI application was received by Ratlam CPIO from Churchgate office on 08.09.2016. After receiving the same, the said RTI application was transferred to the SP, GRP Indore on the same day. The SP, GRP Indore sent reply to the applicant directly through the SHO, Ujjain. The Commission observed that the act of the DCM, Ratlam was untenable as the reply should have been provided by the DCM, Ratlam to whom the above stated RTI application was addressed but the SHO, Ujjain who had provided the said reply to the appellant was not authorised to do so under the RTI Act as he was not the concerned APIO/PIO/CPIO.
It was moreover observed that the said reply is also not in consonance with the points raised in the said RTI application. Thus, the then DCM, Ratlam failed in the discharging of the responsibility cast upon him under the provision of the RTI Act. A Show cause notice accordingly needs to be issued to the then PIO, DCM, Ratlam.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then CPIO/PIO, Ratlam u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
Why no reply in accordance with the point(s) raised in the RTI application dated 26.07.2016 was provided to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of the RTI application.
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 this Page 3 of 8 order. The present CPIO is also to submit a report to the Commission indicating the name, address, mobile no., present place of posting and designation of the CPIO working at the relevant post at the relevant period. 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 the event of non-submission of the explanation within the time stipulated above, the Commission has the liberty to take the required decision ex-parte against the respondent CPIO/PIO.
An advisory is issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to DG, RPF to organise basic training programmes on RTI Act/matters to the officers (respondent CPIO/PIO and FAA)/ and staff dealing with RTI matters working in railways without any delay. The Commission desires that this advice should be viewed seriously and an action taken report be submitted to the Commission within one month of the receipt of the order.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the sought for information on point nos. 1(a), (b), 2 and 3(b) of the stated RTI application is third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Proper information on point nos. 3(a), 4 and 5 based on any record available should be provided to the appellant.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some points raised in the said RTI application, the respondent CPIO,DCM Ratlam is directed to provide point wise reply as discussed above 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 sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned Page 4 of 8 CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO 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 observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 15.10.2018
Respondent : Shri Ajay B Thakur,
CPIO and the then DCM,
Ratlam, Western Railway
In his written explanation dated 11.07.2018, Shri Ajay B Thakur, the then CPIO & DCM-RTM submitted as under:
1. On receipt of the RTI application dated 08.09.2016, the same was transferred to the SPIO i.e., SP Rail GRP -Indore on 08.09.2016 (i.e., same day) u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the matter pertained to the SPIO i.e. SP Rail GRP-Indore, who comes under the independent administrative control of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh (independent respective-SPIO) and not within the administrative control of the Railway administration.
2. He further submitted that on scrutiny of the RTI application dated 26.07.2016, it was observed that prima facie the nature of the information that was sought by the appellant did not fall within the purview and ambit of "information", because only information as available on record can be provided and the application in the nature of complaint was not tenable as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Pertinently, the appellant sought the names of erring/responsible officials for the grave mistake due to which the alleged incident such as stampede, snatching, loot passengers, theft etc took place. Moreover, the appellant also Page 5 of 8 wanted to know reason(s) for refusal by GRP statured there in not registering the FIR which on the face of it was of the nature of outcome of enquiry/investigation and thus, the said contents did not fall within the definition of information as stipulated u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act.
3. The observation of the Commission was that "on perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the commission that the sought for information on point nos. 1 (a),(b), 2 and 3(b) of the stated RTI application is third party information exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act." The CPIO/DCM - Ratlam submitted that despite the aforesaid falling within the relevant exemption clause, the CPIO/DCM supplied the said sought for information such as details of the name of on duty Railway staff including copy of charge book and guidance of coach number (vehicle guidance of the train) to the appellant on 09.02.2017, after verifying the fact that no such alleged incident occurred on 16.05.2016 which only shows the bonafide act on the part of him.
4. He submitted that except for the appellant, none of the other person/passengers/GRP/RPF news paper had ever stated or confirmed the alleged incident during the holy SIMHASHTHA 2016 which was monitored and regulated by the Central as well as State nominated officers. This categorically falsifies and negates the claim of the appellant mentioned by him vide in RTI application.
5. He also submitted that he had never had any intention to undermine or belittle the majesty of Commission's order. Being a CPIO, he was duty bound and obliged to follow the provisions of RTI Act 2005.When the copy of the second appeal was forwarded to his office, after verifying the facts, the information available with this office had been supplied to the appellant free of cost and he had also complied with the direction given by the CIC and had forwarded a letter and an email on 03.07.2018 to the SP-Rail GRP/Indore with a request to supply the requisite information to the appellant.Page 6 of 8
6. In his submissions, he prayed that as a CPIO/DCM-Ratlam, he was working in the capacity of DCM and discharged his duties with bonafide intention and never had any intention to undermine the majesty of the CIC's order.
Nevertheless, if on account of lapse on the part of the order authorities/SPIO, any shortfall in discharge of his duties was felt, he would tender his unconditional and unequivocal apologies with an assurance that he will be more careful and vigilant in discharging duties as an authority under the RTI in future. Decision:
It was noted by the Commission that the RTI application dated 26.07.2016 was received by the CPIO, Shri Ajay B Thakur, DCM, Ratlam on 08.09.2016. On the same day, he transferred the said RTI application to the SPIO, GRP Indore to provide the requisite information to the appellant on the points that pertained to GRP Indore. Thereafter, the reply was provided to the appellant on 15.09.2016 and again on 30.09.2016 by the CPIO, GRP Indore, well within the time limit prescribed under the RTI Act. It was also observed that the CPIO, DCM Ratlam had provided a reply to the points that were related to DCM, Ratlam only on 09.02.2017. However, he was duty bound to provide information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI application regarding those points contained in the said application which pertained to him. Hence, there was a delay of more than 05 months by the then CPIO, Shri Ajay B Thakur to provide a reply to the appellant for which a warning needs to be issued against him.
The Commission does not find the above explanation of the CPIO, Shri Ajay B Thakur, the then CPIO & DCM, Ratlam as satisfactory. The lapse on his part was that he provided a delayed reply to the appellant on the points that pertained to him for which a strict warning is issued against him.
The respondent CPIO, is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as Page 7 of 8 stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission.
With the above observation/warning, the show-cause proceeding is closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय) Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु! ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ"मा#णत स%या&पत "ित) Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप)) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / [email protected] दनांक / Date Page 8 of 8