In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001374
Date of Hearing : May 27, 2011
Date of Decision : May 27, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri R.K.Roy
Janaki Niwas
Road No.2
Dwarikapuri
Hanuman Nagar
Patna 800 020
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Patna
Respondents
The Public Information Officer
East Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Danapur Division
Danapur
Represented by : Shri Dharmatma Singh, DPO
Representing Shri Manojkumar, PIO & Sr.DPO
NIC Studio, Patna
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001374
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.7.9.10 with the PIO, DRM Office, East Central Railway,
Patna. He stated that para 1 of an affidavit furnished under RTI to him dt.18.2.10 read as follows:
‘That as per schedule of Railway Servant (D&A) Rule 1968, Sr. Scale Officer is competent to initiate
D&A proceeding for imposition of major penalty (i.e. Removal, Dismissal & Compulsory Retirement)
in regard to Railway Servant in Scale of Rs.50008000’
In this connection he pointed out that Para 5 of a letter dt.29.3.10 he had received from the PA
reads as follows:
‘It will be worth to mention here that whoever may have approved the appointment of particular
person as a Govt. servant, it is the authority which actually signs the appointment order that becomes
the appointing authority of the particular person’.
However, the Railway Board decision reads as follows:
‘The penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service should obviously not be
imposed by an authority which has merely issued the offer of appointment or order of promotion, with
regard to the appointment or promotion ordered by a competent authority higher to that authority’.
In this context, the Applicant wanted to know the reasons as to why the PIO has deposed a false
statement in the affidavit dt.18.2.10.
Shri Manoj Kumar, PIO replied on 16.9.10 stating that the contents of the affidavit are correct. Being
aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.24.9.10 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondents maintained their position that the contents of the affidavit they
had furnished under RTI are correct . The Complainant however refuted this statement and
maintained his position that contents of the affidavit are wrong.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, noted that the Respondents have
already complied with the Commission’s order and have furnished the required affidavit to the
Appellant. It was also noted that information sought requires interpretation of the rules laid down by
the Railway Board and that the Public Authority has made every attempt to provide whatever
information is available in the records. However, in the interest of the Complainant the PIO is advised
to hold one last personal hearing on the matter with the Complainant to clarify the ‘discrepancies’
pointed out by him. If still not satisfied, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum for
redressal of his grievance. As far as the Commission is concerned, for reasons given above, this
case is closed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri R.K.Roy
Janaki Niwas
Road No.2
Dwarikapuri
Hanuman Nagar
Patna 800 020
2. The Public Information Officer
East Central Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Danapur Division
Danapur
3. Officer in charge, NIC