Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Krishna Kumar Tewari vs Northern Railway on 11 October, 2018

                                     के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नई  द
ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No.: CIC/NRAIL /A/2016/300550-AB
In the matter of:
Krishna Kumar Tewari

                                                                           ...Appellant
                                         VS
PIO / Sr. DCM (the then),
Northern Railway, Divisional
Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow -226001.
        &
Sr. DCM/PIO, Northern Railway,Divisional Office,
Hazratganj, Lucknow - 226001.                                              ...Respondents
                                                   Dates
RTI application                          :         25.02.2016
CPIO reply                               :         Not on record
First Appeal                             :         20.05.2016
FAA Order                                :         Not on record
Second Appeal                            :         09.08.2016
Date of hearing                          :         13.09.2017,03.10.2018
Facts:

The appellant vide RTI application dated 25.02.2016 sought information regarding two employees, their service particulars and raised certain grievances regarding a departmental action against him. The CPIO's reply or the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order is not on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 09.08.2016. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Order
       Appellant           :      Present
       Respondent          :      APIO, Shri Harish Kumar, APO

       During the hearing the respondent APIO failed to provide                           any

convincing clarification/reply despite repeated questions by the CIC.

1

In the absence of any such reply in the case paper, the Commission is constrained to issue A Show Cause Notice to the then PIO, Sr. DCM, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow and present PIO, Sr. DCM to explain the following:-

i. Why no reply to the RTI application dated 25.02.2016 within the time period as specified under the RTI Act u/s 7(1) was provided to the appellant; and ii. Why there was no reply to the appellant even after the receipt of the CIC's hearing notice dated 4.09.2017.
The explanation to the Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission on point no. 1 by the then respondent PIO and Sr. DCM and on point no. 2 by the present PIO and Sr. DCM within 21 days of the receipt of the order.
The present respondent PIO and Sr. DCM 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 PIOs 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 PIOs.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided, the present respondent PIO and Sr. DCM 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 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 direction, the appeal is disposed of.
2
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order            :      03.10.2018
Respondent               :      Shri Moti Lal Meena
                                Divisional Commercial Manager
                                PIO, Lucknow

Shri Moti Lal Meena, Divisional Commercial Manager submitted that Shri Ajit Kumar Sinha was the then PIO, Sr. DCM, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow.
A written explanation was received from Sh. Ajit Kumar Sinha, who is presently posted as Sr. Divisional Operations Manager. It was submitted that the application dated 25.02.2016 of Sh. K K Tiwari was received in the office of Sr. DCM on 01.03.2016 vide Sr. DMM's letter dated 26.02.2016 and this letter was forwarded to the office of Sr. DPO because information on several points pertained to the personnel branch of the division. On receipt of the application of Sh. K K Tiwari, it was observed that the information sought vide item nos. 4 & 5 of the above stated RTI application were related to the office of the then Sr.DCM, whereas the information desired vide item nos. 1,2,3 & 6 of the said RTI application pertained to the personnel branch of the division. Accordingly, information desired vide item nos. 4 & 5 were supplied to the applicant Sh. K K Tiwari vide office letter dated 09.03.2016 within the stipulated time but for some unknown reason, the reply was not delivered to the applicant and later, the same was dispatched to the applicant vide office letter dated 12.04.2016. Thereafter, the applicant Sh. K K Tiwari preferred appeal dated 20.05.2016 which was also replied to vide office letter of even no. dated 08.08.2016. As such the then PIO/Sr. DCM had supplied the information related to his office within the stipulated time period and that he should not be held responsible for not providing information pertaining to the item nos. 1,2,3 & 6 of the said RTI application as these were not within the jurisdiction of the then PIO/Sr. DCM/LKO.
A copy of the reply dated 12.09.2016 provided by the then Assistant Personnel Officer cum PIO to the appellant on point nos. 1,2,3 & 6 was 3 submitted. A comprehensive reply was however provided by the then Assistant Commercial Manager consisting of pointwise information vide their letter dated 15.09.2017.

On perusal of record, it was noted by the Commission that there was a delay of 7 months on the part of the then APO for providing complete pointwise reply to the appellant concerned. Hence, a strict warning is issued to the then APO for providing delayed reply after the period of 7 months. The present DCM shall serve a copy of this order to the then APO. A copy of the service of this order will have to be submitted by the present DCM and PIO to the Commission within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order by the present DCM.

With the above direction, 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 आयु त )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत        त)


Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
 दनांक / Date




                                        4