The nodal CPIO (Railway Board) did not undertake any monitoring to check whether the requisite replies from the concerned zonal railways had been provided - CIC: Mere transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act is not sufficient; Warning issued to PIO
25 Aug, 2017The nodal CPIO (railway board) did not undertake any monitoring to check whether the requisite replies from the concerned zonal railways had been provided - CIC: Mere transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act is not sufficient and the fact remains that the PIO had not dealt with the RTI application in a vigilant manner - A warning was issued to the then PIO Railway Board, Shri U N Mehta to abstain from such negligent action in future while dealing with RTI matters
Facts:
The complainant had sought details of all the OBC employees/officer castewise viz. name, designation, posting, permanent address, office contact number/ mobile number of all the employees of all zones in the Indian Railways and details castewise of all the OBC employees/ officer of all zones in the Indian Railways married and unmarried.
The CPIO’s reply or the First Appellate Authority(FAA)’s order is not on record.
The complainant requested for compensation in his complaint before the Commission. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Complainant : Absent
Respondent : APIO, Shri Gautam, Deputy Director
The case is about an RTI application dated 14.12.15 regarding details about various OBC employees/officers castewise working in the Indian railways in various zones / divisions etc. The RTI application was addressed to the CPIO and EDPG (Central coordination), room no. 467, Railway Board. The complainant went in for first appeal on 18.01.2016 and there was no order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). On being denied requisite information, the complainant filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act to the Commission vide its complaint memo dated 16.03.16.
The complainant was not present to plead his case.
On the day of hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that the said RTI application was transferred to various zonal railways vide their letter dated 19.02.16. However, the nodal CPIO in the railway board, i.e. CPIO -39 and Joint Director (Establishment) (reservation), railway board did not undertake any monitoring to check whether the requisite replies from the concerned zonal railways had been provided to the complainant. The respondent APIO, Shri Gautam Mandal, Deputy Director submitted that the nodal CPIO had not taken any step in this connection after the above said transfers were effected i.e. the RTI application was transferred to the various zonal railways u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The Commission observes that mere transfer u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act is not sufficient and the fact remains that the CPIO-39 and Joint Director (Establishment) (Reservation), Railway Board had not dealt with the RTI application in a vigilant manner.
A warning is issued to the then CPIO-39 and Joint Director (Establishment) (reservation), Railway Board, Shri U N Mehta to abstain from such negligent action in future while dealing with RTI matters. After the first appeal was also addressed to the Railway Board by the complainant, it was clear that no information was yet furnished to the 3 applicant. In future such negligence by the concerned CPIO would attract penal action from the Commission.
The Complainant requested for compensation u/s 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; in his complaint memo. The Commission observes that u/s 18 of the RTI Act, the prayer for compensation is not admissible.
The registry of this Commission is directed to serve a copy of this order on Shri U N Mehta, CPIO-39 and Joint Director (Establishment) (reservation), Railway Board. With the above direction, the complaint case is closed.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya]
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Railway Board in File No.: CIC/AB/C/2016/000026-AB, Date of hearing : 31.07.2017