Central Information Commission
*****
No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00401
Dated: 31 July 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Saidurrehman
R\o Running Shed Colony
L.D-14 A, Terhi Pulia
Alam Bagh, Lucknow, 226005
Name of the Public Authority : Northern Railway
Background:
Shri Saidurrehman of Lucknow filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Northern Railway, on 23 November 2007, seeking
information/documents relating to the appointment of 22 employees as Casual
Labourers/Substitutes against the vacancies of the post of Safaiwala. The Appellant
also sought details about the payment made to one Shri Balakishan, who was
appointed alongwith these employees.
2. The PIO vide his letter dated 20 December 2007 replied to his RTI-
application. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal
with the first Appellate Authority on 21 January 2008 who vide his letter dated 8
February 2008 replied to his appeal. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the
Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal on 5 March 2008.
3. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter
on 24 July 2008.
4. Shri Govind Prasad, PIO and Shri Awadhesh Kumar, APO, represented the
Respondents.
5. The Appellant, Shri Saidurrehman, was present in person.
Decision:
6. The Commission heard both the sides in a case which related to the
appointment of 22 employees as Casual Labourers/Substitutes against the vacancies
of the post of Safaiwala. According to the Appellant, there were instances of fraud
in these appointments and he pointed out at least one case, that of Shri Balakishan,
which contained every evidence of irregularity in payments made to him.
Accordingly, the Appellant wanted all the information regarding all these
appointments.
7. During the hearing, the Respondents admitted that an inquiry into the case
had started as a result of the Appellant pointing out the particular instance of fraud
in these appointments. However, since the appointments related to 1987, that is,
about 20 years old, not all the records were available.
8. During the hearing, the Respondents stated that they felt that as a result of
the inquiry, it was likely that more documentary evidence would be found in the
case. As it is, the Commission feels that the Appellant, who has brought the case to
the notice of the Respondents, has a right to assure himself whether the
investigation in this case is proceeding on right lines. The Commission, therefore,
authorizes him to inspect the progress of the investigation from time to time, say,
once a month.
9. The Commission would urge the Department to expedite the inquiry and see
that the guilty – if found, are punished.
10. During the hearing, the Appellants pointed out that the reply of the
PIO/deemed PIOs or the Appellate Authority is not signed by the concerned officials.
On making enquiries, the Respondents stated that the APOs (Assistant Personnel
Officers) signed these letters but the approval is taken on file. However, none of
these letters have mentioned that the concerned authorities have approved these
replies.
11. The Commission, however, feels that this responsibility cannot delegated and
that the PIOs replies to the Appellant must be signed by the PIOs/deemed PIOs as
the Appellate Authorities must sign their replies to the Appellants. This may be
directly adhered to in future.
12. The Commission advises the PIO of the Railway Board to have these
instructions circulated to all concerned. This must be done by 21 August 2008.
13. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Saidurrehman, R\o Running Shed Colony, L.D-14 A, Terhi Pulia, Alam Bagh,
Lucknow, 226005
2. The Public Information Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s
Office, Lucknow Division, Hazaratganj, Lucknow
3. The Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Manager’s Office,
Lucknow Division, Hazaratganj, Lucknow
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC