Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000059
Dated March 29, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Rajinder Karmakar
Name of the Public Authority : DRM Office
Northern Railway
Ambala Cantt
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.14.9.09 with the PIO, DRM Office, Northern
Railway, Ambala Cantt requesting for inspection of file No.726-E/33/UMB/P-3 of year
1991-95. He filed another RTI application dt.21.9.09 requesting for inspection of
another file 754-E/Photostat Machine Operator/P-III. The PIO replied on 6.10.09
requesting the Applicant to visit the office on a mutually convenient date to inspect the
files. He once again wrote to the Applicant on 7.10.09 requesting him to visit the
office on 9.10.09 to inspect the files. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.16.10.09 with
the Appellate Authority stating that he had visited the office on 9.10.09 and also on
15.10.09 but the required files were not made available to him. On not receiving any
reply from the Appellate Authority, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.nil before
CIC reiterating his request for the information.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for March 29, 2010.
3. Shri T.R.Sharsar, PIO, Shri Sunil Verma, Ch.OS representing Appellate Authority,
Ms.Priti Katiyar, Sr.DPO and Shri Jasbir Singh, DPO were present for the hearing.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the file being sought by the Appellant was not
available even in 2002 when documents were sought in connection with a a court
case. The Appellant on the other hand submitted that he was provided with some
documents from the same file during that year. The Respondent, however, refuted
this contention of the Appellant on the ground that the documents which have been
referred to by the Appellant were not from the file but were forged documents and
that this fact was substantiated by the office. She added that the Appellant was
promoted from Class IV to Class III but due to some reasons he was reverted to Class
IV. When the Appellant filed a case in the High Court against this decision, the High
Court had stayed the reversion and the Appellant is now enjoying all the benefits
that a Class III employee is entitled to. She further added that the files could not be
located since 2002 and that even if the files are located, the Appellant is not going to
benefit any further as he is already enjoying the full benefits of a Class III
employee.
6. The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs as follows:
i) the PIO to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant
stating that the said file has been missing since 2002 and giving reasons for its non-
availability.
ii) with the powers conferred on it under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, the
Commission directs the PIO to conduct an enquiry into the matter of the missing files,
fix the responsibility and take appropriate disciplinary action on the officer for his/her
negligence . The enquiry report may be shared with both the Commission and the
Appellant as also information on the action taken on the officer.
7. The entire exercise to be completed by 29.4.10 and the Appellant to submit a
compliance report to the Commission by 6.5.10.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Rajinder Karmakar
#323/B
Railway Colony
Ambala Cantt
Ambala 133 001
2. The PIO
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Ambala Division
Ambala Cantt
3. The Appellate Authority
Northern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Ambala Division
Ambala Cantt
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC