Central Information Commission
.Nandu Prasad Gupta vs Ministry Of Railways on 10 January, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/OK/A/2008/01300AD
Date of Decision : Jan 10, 2012
Parties:
Complainant
Mr. Nandu Prasad Gupta
C/o Jyoti Kirana Lal Market,
Brahampura Chowk
Muzaffarpur
Bihar - 842 001
Respondent
1. The PIO
East Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Samastipur Division
Samastipur
Bihar
2. The Appellate Authority
East Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Samastipur Division
Samastipur
Bihar
Information Commissioner(s) : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_______________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/OK/A/08/01300AD
ORDER
1. The instant case commenced with the filing of the RTI application dated 26.04.2007 seeking information about his promotion and regularisation against four points from the CPIO, ECR, Samastipur. The Applicant wanted his punishment period also to be considered for promotion and regularization of his quarter. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's pointwise response dated 27.06.2007 providing point wise information, the Applicant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2007 with the Appellate Authority. Despite certain clarification provided by the Appellate Authority by his communication dated 11.09.2007, the Appellant was still aggrieved and hence filed the instant Second Appeal on 22.09.2008 before the CIC requesting the Commission to ensure that the balance payment for the punishment period be paid to him.
2. During the hearing on 28.05.2009, the Respondent submitted that as per extant rules the payment being claimed by the Appellant for the punishment period is not admissible and that the said information has been conveyed to the Appellant. It was noted by the Commission that complete information has been furnished to the Appellant. The Commission also observed that the Appellant's prayer seeking balance due to him for the punishment period was a service related grievance and not information. Hence the Commission dismissed the Appeal holding that the nature of prayer sought by the Appellant does not fall under the purview of the RTI Act. The Commission had however directed the CPIO to Show Cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/ per day (Maximum Rs. 25,000/) should not be levied on him for not responding to the Applicant within the stipulated time as prescribed in the RTI Act.
3. Responding to the Show Cause notice, the Respondent PIO sent a letter dated 18.06.2009 explaining the cause of delay. The PIO submitted that information was sought by his office from the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer vide covering letter dated 27.04.2007 in response whereof information was received from the office of the Additional Personnel Officer only on 25.06.2007 which was forwarded to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.06.2007. The Addl. Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Samastipur by his letter dated 18.06.2009 explained the cause of delay stating that during the time when the Applicant had sought information, around the same time RRC/Patna had organized for a P.E.T programme which being an extremely crucial assignment, the concerned dealer was held up in the said task. The information sought by the Applicant was old and tracing and investigation of the same consumed some time. The information belonged to another department and hence the same had to be obtained only upon establishing proper mechanism. All of these official protocols being time consuming, led to the delay in dissemination of information. However the APO regretted the delay caused in providing the information while also clarifying that the delay was purely because of administrative reasons.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission observes that the submission of the CPIO appears reasonable and that the same seems to be an honest explanation of the delay caused. Moreover, the information as sought and available has already been provided anyway to the Appellant. Therefore, in the light of the above observation, the Commission condones the delay and drops the penal proceedings against the CPIO.
5. The case is disposed of on the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Dy. Registrar Cc:
1. Mr.Nandu Prasad Gupta C/o Jyoti Kirana Lal Market Brahampura Chowk Muzaffarpur 842 001 Bihar
2. The PIO East Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Samastipur Division Samastipur
3. The Appellate Authority East Central Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Samastipur Division Samastipur
4. Officer in Charge, NIC