Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000823
Dated July 30, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Narendra Prasad Yadav
Name of the Public Authority : DRM Office
East Central Railway, Sonepur
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.17.9.09 with the PIO, DRM Office, Sonepur
requesting for the following information with regard to CIC Order No.CIC/OK/A/2009/000049AD
dt.3.8.09.
i) Is it correct that an option was invited vide G/Suchhna dt.8.3.02 signed by Shri Gun Sagar
singh, DPO on behalf of DRM(P), Sonepur for the post of point man in the scale Rs.26504000 fixing
last date as 26.3.2002.
ii) Is it also correct that the above letter i.e G/Suchhna dt.8.3.02 contained a format having
serial number 1 to 11.
iii) Is it true that he had filled the columns of option on the letter i.e G/Suchhna dt.8.3.02 itself
whereon signature of Shri Gun Sagar Singh was there.
iv) Once he had used the copy of letter G/suchhna dt.8.3.02 for exercising option was it
possible for him or for anybody to exercise the option on the same letter on 25.2.02
(OR)
Once the letter G/Suchhna dt.8.3.02 was signed on 8.3.02, how was it possible to use the same letter
on 25.2.02.
v) Did you depose white/plain lie before the Hon’ble CIC, New Delhi on 3.8.09 that applicant
had opted on 25.2.02 i.e. before letter of invitation for the option.
vi) He had never submitted any hand written option dt.26.2.03 but according to para 5 of the
referred order of the Commission, respondent had deposed that applicant submitted option in hand
written letter. A certified true copy of that letter and permission to inspect the original of that.
On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.15.10.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his
request for the information.
Shri Chetram, Appellate Authority replied on 24.12.09 inviting the Applicant to inspect the records on
31.12.09. The Applicant, however filed a second appeal dt.31.3.10 before CIC stating that the
Appellate Authority’s letter inviting him for inspection on 31.12.09 was sent by speed post on 21.1.10
and was received by him on 24.1.10. He sought the following relief from the Commission:
i) The PIO may be directed to produce the very document as mentioned in Para 6 of the RTI
application as he had pleaded before the Commission about option dt.26.2.03.
ii) A penalty of Rs.250/ per day may be imposed on PIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act.
iii) The Respondents be directed to compensate for the loss or detriment suffered due to false
statement of the authorities.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for July 30,
2010.
3. Shri M.K.Gupta, Sr.DPO & PIOrepresented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing. He arrived after the Respondents left. His arrival was
delayed to the late running of his train.
Decision
5. Shri M.K.Gupta, Respondent PIO submitted that the RTI application was received on 25.9.09 and
point wise reply was provided by the PIO on 11.11.09. He further stated that the date 26.2.03
mentioned in the CIC Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2009/000049AD dated 3.8.09, regarding which the
Appellant had sought clarification, was wrongly reported by the Commission and that it should have
been 26.2.02 instead of 26.2.03. Shri M.K.Gupta further submitted that the receipt of the option
from the Appellant shows the reciever’s signature and the date 25.2.02 whereas the option itself was
floated 11 days later thus raising questions about the veracity of the date. The Appellant who arrived
late for the hearing after the Respondents left submitted that the date 25.2.02 was marked wrong
by the receiver of the option who was drunk at that time and the option was handed over after the
notification. He also brought to the attention of the Commission the signatures of the Station Master
and the date of receipt of the option by him ie. 20.3.02 as also that of the DPO ie. 8.3.02, both
existing on the same option letter. The Commission noted at this stage that these signatures and
dates were not brought to the attention of the Commissioner by the Respondent.
6. After hearing the submissions of both sides and noting that the said signatures and dates by the
Station master and the DPO did indeed exist on the option form submitted by the Appellant. The
Commission, u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act, directs the Appellate Authority to conduct an enquiry into the matter
related to the option form claimed to have been submitted by the Appellant on time, and to take appropriate
action based on the outcome of the enquiry. Copies of the enquiry report along with information on action
taken on it to be provided to the Appellant as well as to the Commission by 15 September, 2010. The
Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 30 September, 2010.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Narendra Prasad Yadav
Gateman, Kurhni
Vill – Chot Jhawa
PO – Jhawa (Naraw)
Saran
2. The PIO
East Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Sonepur Division
Sonepur
3. The Appellate Authority
East Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Sonepur Division
Sonepur
4. Officer incharge, NIC