Central Information Commission
Bhikarilal S Bhole 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/AB /A/2016/001058-AB
In the matter of:
Bhikarilal S Bhole
...Appellant
VS
Shri D K Biswas
RTI Cell, Room No. 507, 5th floor, Railway Board,
New Delhi -01
&
Shri Rakesh Kumar,
The then Dy.Director (PG)/APIO(Coord)
RTI Cell, Room No. 507, 5th floor, Railway Board,
New Delhi -01
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 31.12.2015
CPIO reply : 25.01.2016
First Appeal : 14.03.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 24.06.2016
Date of hearing : 04.10.2017, 26.09.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 31.12.2015 sought information on 3 points relating to recruitment for the post of TTE in Nagpur Division, action taken on the application dated 08.12.2015 submitted to the Hon'ble Railway Minister, copy of the notings of the Hon'ble Railway Minister, action taken on the letter of Dr Udit Raj M.P, Lok Sabha, copy of the direction passed by Hon'ble Railway Minister and copy of letters sent to Divisional Railway by 1 Railway Board in compliance of the Hon'ble Railway Minister's direction. The CPIO, Nagpur replied on 25.01.2016 that no such representation dated 08.12.2015 was received in their office. Hence, no information was available on record. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 14.03.2016. The First Appellate Authority order is not on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 24.06.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : APIO, Shri Mangesh Kashinkar, APO (Nagpur)
Absent in Delhi.
The concerned DD (PG), RTI Cell, Railway Board was served a notice to be present in the Commission's hearing on 04.10.2017. It was seen that DD (PG), APIO, Coordination, RTI Cell has simply sent a communication to DGM and PIO, central railway, CST, Mumbai vide communication dated 21.09.17 to be present during hearing on 04.10.2017. However, despite service of a valid and timely notice, neither DD (PG), RTI Cell nor his authorised representative was present on 04.10.2017 to assist the Commission.
During the hearing the respondent APIO, Nagpur had submitted that they had received the RTI application dated 31.12.2015 on 20.01.2016 in the office of the PIO, DRM Office, Mohan Nagar, personnel branch, Nagpur. Accordingly, on 25.1.16, the PIO and Sr. DPO, sent to the appellant a communication stating that the representation as mentioned in the said RTI application of the appellant dated 08.12.2015 addressed to the Railway 2 Minister and the letter of Dr Udit Raj, M.P., Lok Sabha were not received by them. He was directed to send copies of all these communications to the Commission for perusal and record.
The reply of the PIO, Nagpur is categorical that since the above said letter to the Railway Minister and the reference of Dr Udit Raj, M.P., Lok Sabha on these issues were not received by the concerned office of the DRM, Nagpur, the action taken could not be provided to him. He further stated that the original letter addressed to the Railway Minister was not traced by them. The reply provided was accordingly only interim in nature.
The fact remains that the representation dated 08.12.2015 addressed to the Railway Minister and action taken on the letter of Dr Udit Raj, M.P., Lok Sabha were not received by the PIO, Central Railway, Nagpur. These details were however all available in the Ministry of railways as the said letters were all addressed to the Railway Minister & hence the reply in all fairness should have been furnished by the CPIO in the railway board to the appellant. The reason why the particular RTI application was transferred to the Nagpur division of the Central Railway is not readily understood.
The DD (PG) cum APIO, Coordination, RTI Cell, Railway Board should have provided the required information after taking assistance of other officers of the respondent authority under section 5(4) the RTI Act but this was not done in this case and moreover, as the concerned officer was not available during the hearing in the Commission on 04.10.2017, it could not be ascertained whether any such effort was made by the nodal RTI Cell in the railway board or not.
A Show Cause Notice is issued to the CPIO/PIO, DD(PG), Coordination, RTI Cell u/s 20 of the RTI Act to explain the following:-
3i. Why the information which was originated in the office of the Railway Minister could not be coordinated and provided to the appellant in time; and ii. Even when the said RTI application was transferred to the PIO in the DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur why the copies of the relevant representation dated 08.12.2015 addressed to the Railway Minister and reference on the letter of Dr Udit Raj, M.P., Lok Sabha could not be provided to the PIO in the DRM Office, Nagpur. Without the same, it was well-nigh impossible for the PIO at the DRM office, Nagpur to provide the relevant information in a full and final manner to the appellant.
The explanation to the above stated Show Cause Notice is to be submitted to the Commission by the respondent PIO/APIO within 15 days of the receipt of this 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/PIO/APIO 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/PIO/APIO 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 concerned respondent CPIO/PIO/APIO should note that in 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/APIO.4
Be that as it may, it is clear that the appellant has not received any final reply from the respondent authority till today. The DD (PG) cum PIO, Coordination, RTI Cell, railway board is directed to provide the requisite information 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 21 days of the receipt of the order on the following issues/points:
i. action taken started on the representation dated 08.12.2015 addressed to the Railway Minister up to the stage of the final decision taken in this case in the relevant file;
ii. the action taken on the letter of Dr Udit Raj, M.P., Lok Sabha dated 8.12.15 addressed to the railway minister up to the stage of the final decision taken in the relevant file;
iii. the copy of the letter of the railway board addressed to the zonal railway(s) in regard to these two letters.
For this purpose, the concerned 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 direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Adjunct Order : 26.09.2018
Respondent : Shri D.K Biswas, APIO, Railway Board
Shri Rakesh Kumar, the then CPIO, RTI Cell,
Railway Board
5
Shri D.K Biswas, nodal APIO, railway board submitted that as per record it is revealed that the RTI application dated 31.12.2015 from Sh. Bhikarilal S Bhole was received in the RTI Cell, Railway Board on 08.01.2016 and the same was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the DGM(G) & nodal CPIO, Central Railway on 11.01.2016 i.e. within time specified in the RTI Act. He further submitted that due to the transfer of the then DPG & nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Railway Board to other office, the post of nodal CPIO of the RTI Cell, railway board lay vacant and even till date no officer is assigned duty at the railway board in this regard. It is a matter of fact that the RTI applicant was a candidate who appeared in the Departmental Examinations (written test) conducted for the selection of Ticket Examiner by the Central Railway, Nagpur on 24.11.2012 and 16.06.2013. The written test conducted on 24.11.2012 was later cancelled due to allegations of rigging and the same was rescheduled on 16.06.2013. The RTI application of the applicant appeared to be related exclusively to the Central Railway, Nagpur's Office, hence the same was transferred under 6(3) of RTI Act to the concerned Public Authority at Nagpur.
Later, in view of the reply provided by the CPIO, Nagpur and due to examination at the CIC, the RTI Cell, railway Board consulted the office of the Minister for Railway and the concerned Directorate of the Railway Board to trace out the dealing of the representation mentioned in the said RTI application and records related thereto.
The relevant records as collected during the search indicated the position of relevant records as under:-
(i) Presence of the copy of the movement of the application of the MP, Dr. Udit Raj which was the subject matter of this RTI application in the Minister's office receipt and despatch records.
(ii) Copy of the letter dated 08.12.2015 of Dr. Udit Raj, M.P. 6
(iii) Copies of reply/comments received from the concerned zonal railway (Central Railway) in the matter.
(iv) Copy of the reply given/issued by the then MoS(R) to Dr. Udit Raj, M.P in the case.
A set of these records had already been furnished to the applicant in compliance of the order of the Commission.
Sh. Biswas, APIO submitted that his wife was suffering from dengue fever from 23.09.2017 to 06.10.2017. Due to this, he could not attend the said hearing before the CIC. He tendered his unqualified apology for not attending the said hearing before the CIC.
The fact still remains that even when the said RTI application was transferred to the PIO in the DRM Office, Central Railway, Nagpur why copies of the relevant representation dated 08.12.2015 addressed to the Railway Minister by Dr Udit Raj, M.P., Lok Sabha were not provided to the PIO in the DRM Office, Nagpur without which it was not possible for the concerned PIO at Nagpur, DRM office to provide relevant information to the RTI appellant in a full and final manner.
Shri Rakesh Kumar, the then CPIO, RTI Cell, railway board submitted that prima facie reading of the representation revealed that the applicant being candidate in the departmental examination conducted by the NGP (Nagpur) division of Central Railway, had sought information/records for which the central railway was the custodian.
In keeping with above observation in mind, the dealing hand (SO/RTI Cell) transferred the application to the PIO of Central Railway with a genuine belief that the PIO in the DRM office, Nagpur had the requisite papers/records sufficient for providing full and final reply to the above stated RTI application. The concerned SO/RTI cell, railway board has since retired. Later it was found that the concerned department (E/Rep Branch) had also sent two other references on the same subject, both addressed to the Railway Minister to the central Railway for furnishing detailed report thereon.
7On receipt of comprehensive report later on from the central railway, a reply in the matter was furnished by the railway minister himself to Dr. Udit Raj, MP. No reply to the representationist (the complainant in the present case) was however provided by the concerned branch of the railway board in this case.
It is clear that the concerned department of the Nagpur division (Central Railway) was conversant with the above stated subject matter and that the reference letter in question was not only seen but examined by DRM office, Nagpur earlier also.
So, the plea that the PIO, DRM office, Nagpur could not provide requisite reply to the RTI application in the present case in the absence of the above stated letter of the MP is not only not true but misleading.
He further submitted that it is a matter of record that the application in this case was also transferred later on to the PIO of the Central Railway. As per extant practice, it is generally carefully ensured that applications/appeals or letters are forwarded to the addressees along with all necessary enclosures.
Similarly, in the event of any application/appeal received in the RTI cell, railway board without its enclosure, the deficiency is pointed out to the sender (Govt offices or individual) enabling the references to be processed for further necessary action. Communications are made through email, fax, phone, whatsapp or through courier as per priority to expedite cases.
In the instant case, if the forwarding letter of the railway board was found without its enclosures the Central Railway PIO would have pointed it out to the CPIO, railway board, nodal RTI Cell immediately and the Central Railway in all probability would have obtained this enclosure through email or fax or whatsapp or through courier from the RTI Cell of railway board even if informally later on especially as this was a case of RTI application and not a general communication between railway board and the particular zonal railway. This assumption is strengthened because of the fact that Nagpur division of the Central Railway neither pointed out the deficiency to the railway board nor did 8 they take any initiative on paper at least to know the content of the representation which was allegedly sent as an annexure along with the transferred RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission finds the above explanation of the then CPIO, railway board just and proper. Moreover, Smt Sheila Chaliha, the then SO who transferred the said RTI application to Nagpur is retired now. It would be appropriate to close the showcause proceeding in the interest of justice.
With the above observation, the showcause proceeding is closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the 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 9