CIC: Appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief despite having indulged in bigamy - CIC referred the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration of lenient view taken in a serious matter like Bigamy

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

"(1) प्रमोटी सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर यदि किसी प्राधिकरण पत्र / नियम के अंतर्गत जीपी 2400 लेवल-4 में कार्यरत ट्रैकमैन को सेवा से निकालने की शास्त्रिक अनुमति में सक्षम है, तो उसकी प्रमाणित प्रति उपलब्ध कराने का प्रयास करें।"

"(2) प्रार्थी की समीक्षा याचिका दिनांक 02.01.2023 पर प्रमुख निरीक्षक प्राधिकारी एवं अपर मंडल रेल प्रबंधक (इम्फाल), बीकानेर के पत्रांक 161 ईई / डीएण्डआर / अपील / वेद प्रकाश दिनांक 03.02.2023 में लिखा है कि आरोपित कर्मचारी श्री वेद प्रकाश मिश्रा, ट्रैक मेंटेनर (ग्रेड-III) एसएसई / पीवे / सूरतगढ़ द्वारा प्रस्तुत समीक्षा अपील एवं अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा अपील पर ली गई डिटेल्ड टिपणी का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया गया। आपसे अनुरोध है कि कृपया अनुशासनिक प्राधिकारी की उक्त टिप्पणी (दस्तावेज़) की प्रमाणित प्रति उपलब्ध कराने का श्रम करें।

(3) प्रार्थी द्वारा सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर / उपरे / सूरतगढ़ जन. को प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 13.07.2022 (संलग्न - 1) पर की गई कार्रवाई की प्रमाणित प्रति उपलब्ध कराने का श्रम करें।

Loose translation in English:

"(1) If the promoted Assistant Divisional Engineer is competent to authorize the termination of service of a Trackman working in GP 2400 Level-4 under any authorization letter/rule, then an attempt should be made to provide the certified copy of the same."

"(2) In the review petition dated 02.01.2023, the letter from the Chief Inspector Authority and Additional Divisional Railway Manager (Imphal), Bikaner, with reference number 161 EE/D&A/Appeal/Ved Prakash, dated 03.02.2023, mentions that the review appeal of the charged employee, Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra, Track Maintainer (Grade-III) SSE/Pway/Suratgarh, and the detailed comments made by the disciplinary authority on the appeal were carefully observed. You are requested to kindly make efforts to provide the certified copy of the said comments (document) by the disciplinary authority."

"(3) Please make an effort to provide the certified copy of the action taken on the prayer letter dated 13.07.2022 (attached - 1) submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Divisional Engineer/UDR/Suratgarh."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.03.2023 stating as under:

"उपरोक्त संदर्भित पत्र के तहत श्री वेद प्रकाश मिश्रा के द्वारा जो सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के अंतर्गत प्रस्तुत आवेदन के क्रम में मिस संख्या 1 के क्रम में रेल सेवक (अनुशासन एवं अपील) नियम 1968 की अनुसूची-1 की प्रति संलग्न है।"

Loose translation in English:

"Under the above-referred letter, the copy of Schedule-1 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, is enclosed as part of the application submitted by Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in respect of item number 1.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.05.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO by stating as under:

“आपके द्वारा अपेक्षित सूचना के संबंध में इंजीनियरिंग विभाग, बीकानेर से प्राप्त सूचना की प्रति इस पत्र के साथ संलग्न कर आपको भेजी जा रही है।
संलग्न: उपरोक्त- मि. सं. 01: आपके द्वारा अपेक्षित दस्तावेज़ी सूचना कार्यालय रिकॉर्ड में उपलब्ध नहीं है।

सं. 02: आपके द्वारा अपेक्षित सूचना के संबंध में अपर मंडल रेल प्रबंधक / इन्फा महोबिय के द्वारा जारी आदेश की सत्यापित प्रति इस पत्र के साथ संलग्न कर भेजी जा रही है।”

विषय: श्री वेद प्रकाश मीणा, ट्रैक मेंटेनर (SSE/पीवे/सुरतगढ़) की रिप्रेज़ेंटेशन अपील पर निर्णय।

आरोपी कर्मचारी श्री वेद प्रकाश मीणा, ट्रैक मेंटेनर (SSE/पीवे/सुरतगढ़) द्वारा प्रस्तुत रिप्रेज़ेंटेशन अपील और प्रशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा अपील पर की गई कार्रवाई का पूर्ववर्ती अवलोकन किया गया।

श्री वेद प्रकाश मीणा, ट्रैक मेंटेनर (SSE/पीवे/सुरतगढ़) को मार्क फॉर्म संख्या 5 जारी कर सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर/सुरतगढ़ रेलवे सेवा से निष्कासन की शास्ति दी गई। आरोपी कर्मचारी ने उक्त शास्ति के विरोध में वरिष्ठ मंडल इंजीनियर/पश्चिम को अपील प्रस्तुत की। वरिष्ठ मंडल इंजीनियर/पश्चिम ने कर्मचारी की पारिवारिक और सामाजिक जिम्मेदारियों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, सहानुभूतिपूर्वक विचार करते हुए रेलवे सेवा से निष्कासन की शास्ति को रद्द कर उसे रेलवे सेवा में एक अवसर और प्रदान किया और उसे न्यूनतम वेतनमान पर काम करने का आदेश दिया।

मैंने पूरी तरह से आरोपपत्र और अपील का गंभीरता से अवलोकन किया। आरोपपत्र में कोई तथ्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है। आरोपी कर्मचारी ने अपनी ड्यूटी के प्रति कोई भी गंभीरता नहीं दिखाई है। कोई भी रेल कर्मचारी पहली पत्नी के रहते हुए दूसरा विवाह करता है और इसकी सूचना प्रशासन को नहीं देता, यह एक गंभीर अपराध है। अतः प्रशासनिक प्राधिकारी द्वारा इस मामले में की गई कार्रवाई और शास्ति उचित है। मैं प्रशासनिक प्राधिकारी द्वारा की गई शास्ति से सहमत हूं और इस कारण से आरोपी कर्मचारी की अपील को खारिज करता हूं।

सं. 03: अपेक्षित सूचना कार्यालय रिकॉर्ड में उपलब्ध नहीं है।
संलग्न: उपरोक्त...

Loosely translated in Englsih

"Regarding the information you requested, a copy of the information received from the Engineering Department, Bikaner, is being sent to you along with this letter.
Enclosed: As above-
Ref. No. 01: The requested documentary information is not available in the office records.
Ref. No. 02: The verified copy of the order issued by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager / Infra Mahoviy concerning the requested information is being sent to you along with this letter."

Subject: Decision on the Representation Appeal of Shri Ved Prakash Meena, Track Maintainer, SSE/P.Way/Suratgarh.

The representation appeal presented by the employee, Shri Ved Prakash Meena, Track Maintainer (SSE/P.Way/Suratgarh), and the appeal's review by the administrative officer have been carefully examined.

Shri Ved Prakash Meena, Track Maintainer (SSE/P.Way/Suratgarh), was issued Mark Form No. 5 and dismissed from the services of the Assistant Divisional Engineer/Suratgarh Railway. The accused employee presented an appeal against this penalty to the Senior Divisional Engineer/Western. Considering the family and social responsibilities of the employee, the Senior Divisional Engineer/Western, after giving due consideration, annulled the dismissal penalty and provided the employee another opportunity in the railway service, assigning him the minimum wage.

I have thoroughly reviewed the charge sheet and the appeal. The appeal submitted by the accused employee did not present any substantial facts. The accused employee has not shown any dedication towards his duties. Any railway employee marrying again while still being married to their first wife, without informing the administration, is a serious offense. Therefore, the action taken by the administrative authority and the penalty imposed are deemed appropriate. I agree with the penalty imposed by the administrative authority and thus reject the appeal of the accused employee.

Ref. No. 03: The requested information is not available in the office records.
Enclosure: As above...

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of false and incomplete information received from the respondent.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma, Sr. DE (on behalf of Shri Pratul, Sr. DPO/CPIO), NW Railway, Bikaner present through video-conference.

The respondent stated that in response to RTI application, point-wise reply has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 13.03.2023 and by FAA vide its order dated 25.05.2023. Further, while narrating the factual background of this case he orally stated that the appellant has been initially dismissed from the services on the charge of bigamy, however, he was reinstated on the order of competent authority on 03.02.2023 at the initial grade.

Respondent prayed the Commission to grant him time to file written submission enumerating the facts of this case in detail to facilitate due assistance to the bench in disposal of this appeal.

Decision

The Commission at the outset severely admonished the conduct of the Respondent, Shri Pratul, Sr. DPO-cum-CPIO, NW Railway, Bikaner as he did not bother to file written submission enumerating details of events and factual background with the reply given to the appellant in the matter despite praying for the same through his representative before the bench.

Now, as regards the relief of information is concerned, the Commission observed from perusal of records that following a review process on the application of the appellant, the competent authority cancelled of dismissal of the appellant from services and while restoring him in the service he has been demoted. The ADRM concerned has disposed of the review petition vide a speaking order dated 03.02.2023. The appellant has not given any specific ground for filing the second appeal.

It is noted by the Commission that the appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief by issuing a favourable order despite appellant having indulged in bigamy. The Commission deems it fit to refer the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration in the form of lenient view being taken by subordinate officers in such a serious matter as bigamy.

FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ved Prakash Meena v. Office the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/139716; Date of Decision : 06.03.2025