क यस चन आय ग CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ब ब ग ग न थ म ग

Transcription

1 क यस चन आय ग CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ब ब ग ग न थ म ग Baba Gangnath Marg, म नरक, नईदल Munirka, New Delhi Tel: / File No.: CIC/RAILB/A/2017/ In the matter of: Ashwani Kumar Vs. DPG and CPIO, RTI Cell, Room No-507, 5 th Floor, Railway Board, New Delhi-01 & DGM (Law) and PIO, Headquarter s Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi & AVO/E-cum PIO/Vig, Headquarter s Office, Northern Railway, Vigilance Branch, Baroda House, New Delhi Dates RTI application : CPIO reply : , First Appeal : FAA Order : Not on record Second Appeal : Date of hearing : Facts: 1...Appellant...Respondents The appellant vide RTI application dated sought information on four points; certified copy of the final outcome of the complaint dated , , , , , , , and The CPIO replied on and The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO s reply and filed first appeal on The First Appellate Authority (FAA) s order is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information, the appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on

2 Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Order Appellant : Present Respondent : Shri R D Ram, Deputy Director (A&P) Railway Board cum CPIO Shri Deepak Kumar Representative of CPIO (Vigilance) Baroda House During the hearing the appellant submitted that he had sought certified copy of the final outcome of his below mentioned nine complaints: 1. MGR/AKP/12,846, dated MGR/AKP/12,911, dated MGR/AKP/12,871, dated MGR/AKP/13,087, dated MGR/AKP/13,091, dated MGR/AKP/12,975, dated MGR/AKP/13,389, dated MGR/AKP/13,565, dated MGR/AKP/12,741, dated During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letters dated and The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper. Hence the case might be dismissed. The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent. On perusal of the case record, it was seen that proper reply was not provided to the appellant. The outcome of the vigilance complaints in the form of certified true copies of the documents should have been provided to the appellant by the concerned respondent authority earlier. Shri R D Ram, Deputy Director (A&P) Railway Board cum CPIO submitted that he is the present CPIO and the then CPIO, Shri Ravinder Pandey had since been transferred from the vigilance department of the Railway Board. Based on the records it was observed by the Commission that Shri Ravinder Pandey, CPIO (Vig.) cum Joint Director Vigilance (A & P), Railway Board vide letter dated had sought for the transfer of the said RTI 2

3 application under the provision of the Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act (serial nos. 1-4 and 7 and 9 of the above-mentioned complaint). In respect of serial nos. 5 and 6, the CPIO (Vig.) stated in his reply that the complaint had been referred back to the complainant, in respect of the serial no. 8 of the said complaint, he informed the complainant that the same had not been registered in the Vigilance data-base meaning thereby that the same had not been received in the Vigilance Directorate of the Railway Board. The CPIO, Railway Board had transferred part of the queries under Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act but this action is not maintainable under the RTI Act as the said transfer was done after a lapse of almost forty-seven days after its receipt by the CPIO concerned. It is relevant to mention here that the Sec 6(3) transfer cannot be done by the PIOs according to their own whims and fancies. Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act reads as under: (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. The then CPIO (Vig.), Shri Ravinder Pandey, Joint Director Vigilance (A & P), Railway Board had transferred the said RTI application to different wings of railways, for eg. General Manager (Vigilance), Northern Railway, Director Estt (W), Railway Board etc, after 47 days from the date of receipt of the said RTI application by him, which is not only negligent but it shows his lack of knowledge about this basic provision of the RTI Act. An advisory is issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to Shri R.D. Sharma, Additional Member (Commercial) Railway Board to look into the matter for providing suitable training to the officers dealing with RTI matters in the 3

4 railway board and posted elsewhere, i.e. at the zonal and divisional levels. A copy of this order is to be sent by the registry to Shri R.D. Sharma, Additional Member (Commercial) Railway Board for information and active and vigorous implementation. The PIO, Vigilance Branch, Headquarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi replied vide letter dated as follows: Item no. 1,2,3 As mentioned by Railway Board that complaint no. MGR/AKP/12,846, MGR/AKP/ and MGR/AKP/12,871 was forwarded to this office vide letter no. 2015/V4/NR/AC/Misc/22, in this regard it is apprised that Railway Board vide said letter had forwarded the complaints under PIDPI to this office which did not bear the complaint no., date, name and address of complainant. Complaints which were received in this office through letter no. 2015/V4/NR/AC/Misc/22 have been dealt as per procedure and the case has been closed in this office with the approval of competent authority. Item no. 7 Complaint no. MGR/AKP/13,389 dated has been forwarded to FA & CAO vide this office letter no. Vig/CT/2015/07/0234/V2 dated for taking further necessary action. Item no. 9 Complaint no. MGR/AKP/13741, which was received in this office through letter no. 2015/V4/NR/AC/Misc/142 has been dealt as per procedure and the case has been closed in this office with the approval of competent authority. The above reply of the CPIO in respect of serial no. 7 is interim in nature. The rest of the replies on serial nos. 1,2,3 and 9 are proper. The PIO, Vigilance Branch, Headquarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi also replied vide letter dated as follows: Reference above it is apprised that investigation in this case has already been conducted by Northern Railway Vigilance Department and you have also been informed about the outcome of investigation vide this office letter no. Vig/CT/V4/2015/10/0007/DLI dated As the investigation in this case has already been conducted no further action was required on your complaint dated , therefore the complaint has been filed in this office. 4

5 The above reply of the PIO, Shri Girish Chand Lavania is deplorable and vague. The reply did not mention as regard to which complaint out of the nine complaints submitted, the details as provided to the appellant were related. A strict warning is issued to Shri Girish Chand Lavania, PIO (Vig.), NR Hqrs to refrain from providing such negligent and vague replies under the Act in future. The Commission observes that the appellant had sought Outcome report in his representation. In regard to the information sought by him, the Commission is of the opinion that after applying Sec 10 of the RTI Act i.e. after masking the identities of the officers who gave their opinion through file notings and names of the witnesses who were examined while preparing the outcome report by the investigating officials, the balance portion of the contents of the outcome report can be provided to the appellant. In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors) wherein it had observed as under: 37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. In the present case, the appellant had sought specific information regarding outcome of his own complaints. The CPIO, Shri R D Ram, Deputy Director (A&P) Railway Board is directed to provide revised categorical reply on serial nos. 5, 6 and 8 of the said RTI application within 15 days from the receipt of the order. OR In case the records are not available, the present respondent CPIO, is directed to submit an affidavit declaring that no such record(s) is available with the respondent, within one month of the receipt of this order with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within the same time period. 5

6 The PIO, Vigilance Branch, Headquarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi, Shri Girish Chand Lavania shall provide the information on serial nos. 4 and 7 of the said application within one month of the receipt of this order. For this purpose, the PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act. Both the CPIO/PIO(s) should ensure that the names of the officers and witnesses as discussed in the outcome report are obliterated before disclosing the sought for information. The order shall be complied with within 15 days from 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. Copies of the order be provided to the concerned parties free of cost. Authenticated true copy [Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar Copy to: 1. Shri R.D. Sharma, Additional Member (Commercial) Railway Board 6