Central Information Commission
Shri Tarkeshwar Ray vs East Central Railway on 12 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000956/3678
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000956
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Shri Tarkeshwar Ray, (inspector incharge),
East Central Railway,
Sonpur Division,
Railway Security Force,
Post: Gadh hara
Hajipur (Bihar)
Respondent : Mr. Y.K.Jaiswal
PIO East Central Railway, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Mughalsarai RTI application filed on : 21.10.2008 PIO replied : Not mentioned.
First Appeal filed on : 27.01.2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned. Second Appeal received on : 29.04.2009. Information Sought:
The Appellant sought for information regarding Office of Railway Security Force, Mugalsarai. Attested photocopy of A. 1. The copy of charge sheet no.8/08 issued to Shri S. K. Bhatnagar, (Inspector Incharge) on date 14.03.2008.
2. The copy of decision made by Senior Divisional Security Force, Mugalsarai
3. The copy of complaint on the basis of charge sheet issued.
B. 1. The copy of charge sheet issued to Shri S.K.Bhatnagar, Inspector Incharge, Railway Security Force, West Post on date 14.07.2008
2. The copy of the decision made by Senior Railway Security Officer, Mugalsarai, of mentioned above charge sheet.
3. Copy of complaint on the basis of which of charge sheet issued.
The reply of PIO:
Not mentioned.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr.Tarkeshwar Ray Respondent : Mr. Madhu Angaria on behalf of PIO Mr. Y.K.Jaiswal The respondent has sent his written submission showing that the PIO asked for assistance from Sr. DCM on 11/11/2008 under Section 5(4). The Sr. DSC/MGS wrote a letter Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar on 25/11/2008 to get his consent under Section(11). Sr. DCM/MGS asked my Ray for consent on 27/11/2008. The PIO states that Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar objected to give the information on 24/04/2009 and Sr.DCM and CPIO/MGS sent a letter to Mr. Ray rejecting the information on 05/05/2009.
It is clear that the PIO has failed in his duty completely in implementing the RTI Act. He should have asked for any objection from the third party within 5 days and the third party under Section 11(2) of the RTI Act is expected to give his reply within 10 days. In absence of any reply the PIO should have sent the information to the appellant or given reasons for rejection. Even when Mr. S.K.Bhatnagar objected to give the information on 24/04/2009 the PIO has given no reasons for denial of information. Under Section 11(1) the PIO's expected to keep the submissions of the third party in view and give a decision. This decision has to be based on the exemptions of the Section 8(1) which is not been done. Also is clear that the PIO seeks to absolve himself of his failure to respond to the appellant by claiming that he waited for Mr. Bhatnagar's objection for about 5 months. No case has been made out for justifying rejection of the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information will be provided to the appellant before 25 June 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO/deemedPIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 13 July 2009 at 5.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 12 June 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Rnj)