Central Information Commission
Bhawabai vs Central Railway on 9 October, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No : CIC/CRAIL/A/2017/133569
In the matter of:
Bhawabai
...Appellant
Vs.
PIO and Sr.DPO, Central Railway,
Modi Khana, Navi Peth, Solapur, Maharashtra-413007
&
Shri B Chandra Muhiya,
The then PIO/the then Sr. DPO,
Central Railway, Modi Khana, Navi Peth,
Solapur, Maharashtra-413007 ...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 21.01.2017
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 06.03.2017
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 17.04.2017
Date of hearing : 17.01.2018, 25.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 21.01.2017 sought information regarding action taken on her application dated 30.12.2016 regarding revision of her husband's pension. The CPIO's reply or 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 a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 17.04.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Vivek Kumar,
Divisional Personnel Officer cum APIO,
Central Railway
The notice of hearing was sent to the appellant on 03.01.2018, however, the postal department has stated that the address was not sufficient and thus it could not be delivered to the appellant and it was returned to the CIC. It was noted by the Commission that the notice of hearing was sent at the address as mentioned in the RTI application by the appellant. The address of the appellant as written in the RTI application is the only means of corresponding with her. The address as mentioned in the RTI application was accordingly treated as correct and in view of the large backlog of cases, the Commission had no other option but to go ahead with the case even in the absence of the appellant.
There was no reply of the respondent CPIO on record. Aggrieved with the reply, the appellant went in for first appeal on 06.03.2017 and the first appellate authority vide its order dated 25.09.2017 had stated that the case did not pertain to Solapur but pertained to the Executive Engineer(B&F), Manmad and hence, the appellant was advised to approach the Executive Engineer(B&F), Manmad.
On 15.01.2018 after obtaining the response of the Executive Engineer (B&F), Manmad, a final reply was provided to the appellant in which it was informed that the pension of the appellant's husband was revised and the revised PPO was also attached to the said reply.
The appellant was not present to plead her case as explained above. All the necessary correspondences/replies were not available in the case record, the respondent APIO, Solapur was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send copies of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
2On perusal of the case record, it was seen that this case was never transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer (B&F), Manmad, Bhusawal division nor was there any attempt by the Sr.DPO, central railway to collect the requisite information from Bhusawal. Sending a reply after almost six months and advising the appellant to approach another office for obtaining the required information is a travesty of section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The then Sr. DPO is held responsible for not providing the final reply even after one year and in the reply dated 15.01.2018 only, the grievance of the appellant i.e. the revision of the appellant's husband was redressed but the final reply in this case under the RTI Act is still outstanding e.g. action taken on the representation dated 30.12.2016 has not been provided so far to the appellant by way copies of the note sheet, correspondences generated on processing of the said representation of the appellant in the present case, for which the then PIO, Sr.DPO, Solapur, Shri B. Chandra Muhiya needs to be issued show cause notice.
In view of the above, a Show Cause notice is issued to the then PIO, Sr.DPO, Solapur, Shri B. Chandra Muhiya u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following issue:-
Why the RTI application was not replied to as per the provisions of the RTI Act even after one year?
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 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 the case 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.3
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent PIO, Solapur is directed to provide point wise reply e.g. action taken on the representation dated 30.12.2016 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, letter, correspondence, e-mail 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, 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 show cause and direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 25.09.2018
Respondent : Shri P.K. Sharma, APO (T&C)/SUR
DRM(P), Solapur, Maharashtra
Sh. B.Chandra Mohiyar, Sr DPO and PIO was not present in person and instead sent his subordinate officer i.e Shri P.K. Sharma, APO (T&C)/SUR DRM(P), Solapur to the Commission to represent him during the hearing before the CIC.
He submitted a written explanation on 01.03.2018 in which he stated that the RTI application from Smt. Bhawabai Dharma was received in their office by the dealing clerk for taking necessary action. The dealing assistance in the office of the Sh. Mohiyar, the then Sr. DPO could not identify the employee only from the PPO number, as designation and station/depot from which the employee mentioned in the said RTI application retired was not mentioned in the RTI application dated 21.01.2017. Hence further action could not be taken on the basis of this application. As such the case was not falling under the 4 jurisdiction of the Solapur division also. The case details and documents etc were not dealt or maintained by the personnel department of the Solapur division. However, they tried to search relevant records to help the RTI applicant but in vain without the above stated specific details.
Further an appeal dated 06.03.2017 was received in the office, during which also effort was made to trace out old records. Therefore, the RTI application for revision of pension of her husband, late Shri Dharma Dasharath was forwarded to the XEB(Bridge)/MMR and copy of the reply of the APIO was forwarded to applicant on 25.09.2017.
In this case the pension of late Shri Dharma Dashrath Netake was already revised vide PPO No. CR1071874879 dated 09/10/2014 and the same was forwarded by the Accounts office, Solapur to the State Bank of India, CPPC Navi Mumbai for its onward transmission to Kurduwadi branch of the bank.
Decision :
The Commission finds the explanation from the then CPIO not convincing and as per the provision of the RTI Act. Moreover, B.Chandra Mohiyar, Sr DPO and PIO was not present at the CIC to justify his stand. Hence, a token penalty needs to be imposed on B.Chandra Mohiyar, the then Sr DPO.
The Commission hereby imposes a token penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on Sh. B.Chandra Mohiyar, the then Sr DPO and PIO for not providing appropriate reply under the provision of the RTI Act within the stipulated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- in 2 equal monthly instalments. The DRM, Central Railway, Solapur Division is directed to recover the amount of Rs 5,000/- from the salary payable to B.Chandra Mohiyar, Sr DPO and PIO and remit the same by way of demand draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 2 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 20.10.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 20.11.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to 5 Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e-mail;[email protected] Room no. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the DRM, Central Railway, Solapur Division for compliance of this order.
The DRM, Central Railway, Solapur Division is directed to take action as per the above direction and submit an action taken report within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
With the above order, the showcause proceeding is closed. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned 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 Copy to:
i) DRM, Central Railway, Solapur Division. ii) Deputy Registrar (CR-II), e-mail;[email protected] Room no. 106,
First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.6