Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001686
CIC/AD/A/2009/001681
Dated April 30, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Rakesh Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : DRM Office
North Western Railway, Ajmer
Background
Case No.CIC/AD/A/2009/001686
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dt.3.6.09 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Western
Railway, Ajmer. He stated that he had submitted an application for permission to
appear in the RRB Examination to be conducted for the post of clerk cum Typist. While
seeking the NOC for Jr.ClerkcumTypist, he was asked to resign from the present post
i.e. Asstt. Khallasi. As he did not receive the reply in connection with permission for
appearing in the RRB examination, he submitted another application dt.2.4.09, the
information regarding which has not been received by him till 27.5.09. He also requested
the PIO to add years of service of present post to the post of Jr.ClerkcumTypist as both
the services are related to NWR and if it is not done so, to list out the rules in this
connection. The PIO replied on 11.6.09 stating that the Applicant had not obtained NOC
before applying for the examination and it was only close to the examination that the
application was submitted. With regard to the 2nd point, he stated that the letter dt.2.4.09
had not been received in the office. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an
appeal dt.22.6.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the clerk had entered details of
the application in the register and had also given the File No. and that he had himself
gone and submitted the application with the person recommended by the clerk ie. with
Ms. Neena in the office in Ajmer responsible for forwarding the application to the
Railway Board. Shri Prakash Bhutani, Appellate Authority replied on 21.7.09 enclosing
the reply dt.21.7.09 provided by the nodal officer stating that the signature on the copy of
the application was not that of the clerk and that in his first appeal, he is now seeking
information about the transfer which he had not sought in the RTI application. Being
aggrieved with the reply, applicant filed a second appeal dt.14.10.09 before CIC.
Case No.CIC/AD/A/2009/001681
2. The Applicant filed his RTI application dt.13.5.09 with the PIO, DRM Office, North
Western Railway, Ajmer seeking information against 3 points with regard to the rest days
provided to the coach attendant and nonallotment of quarters. The PIO replied on
29.5.09 stating that as per the available records the employees working as coach
attendants have been given two days as well as three days rest. Hence it is not correct
to say that the employees were given only two days rest in the past. With regard to
quarters, he stated that the Applicant had applied for quarters on 1.10.07 and from
1.10.07 to 3.2.09, there was no vacancy and after 4.2.09, quarter No.2147/A was
vacated. The Housing Committee vide letter dt.10.2.05 had issued orders that
assessment may be made as per requirement of facility and employees may be asked to
submit their new option for quarter facility allotment. For the information of all the
employees the copy of the above letter was pastd on the notice board and the names of
employees who had submitted their option have been enrolled in the waiting list of
allotment of quarters but the Applicant has not submitted any option in this regard. Hence
he has not been allotted any quarter. Not satisfied with the reply, the applicant filed an
appeal dt.22.6.09 with the Appellate Authority. Shri Prakash Bhutani, Appellate Authority
replied on 20.7.09 enclosing the information dt.17.7.09 furnished by Sr.DEE. Being
aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.Nil before CIC.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for April 30, 2010.
4. Shri S.M.Johry, PIO and Shri P.S.Chouhan, Sr.PI represented the Public Authority.
5. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
CIC/AD/A/2009/001686
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had not followed the normal procedure of
approaching the Railway Board for permission for appearing in the exam through the
concerned office in Ajmer which forwards such requests to the Railway Board and had
instead applied for permission directly to Railway Board. He also stated that the
Appellant’s letter written to the concerned Ajmer office a few days before the exam, for
permission to appear in the exam had not been received by the office. The Appellant,
however, refuted this statement and stated that he has a receipt signed by the clerk Ms.
Neena who is posted at the Ajmer office, The Respondent, however, believed that it
was not the signature of Ms. Neena. The Appellant argued that even if the first letter had
not been received by the office, his second letter had been received by them along with
the copy of the first letter requesting for permission and hence the PIO is very well aware
of his request and had given wrong information when he stated that the first letter has not
been received by him. The Respondent admitted to having received the request letter
along with the Appellant’s second letter and stated that information in this regard has
already been furnished to the Appellant. The issue at this stage is whether the fist letter
was received by the office or not ie. whether the handwriting on the receipt is that of Ms.
Neena as contended by the Appellant or that of someone else.
7. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the PIO under
Section 18(2) of the RTI act, to hold an enquiry with the participation of the Appellant and also of
a handwriting expert to ascertain whether the application submitted by the Appellant is that of
Ms. Neena or not and where the application is lying at this point of time. Based on the outcome of
the enquiry, appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against the PIO or the Appellant , under
intimation to the Commission. The exercise to be completed by 5 June, 2010.
CIC/AD/A/2009/001681
8. The Commission after reviewing the documents on record and after hearing both sides,
directs the PIO to provide the copy of the rule regarding rest days allowed for the coach
attendants and also to allow the Appellant for inspection of records dealing with rest
days availed by the Appellant and to provide him with attested copies of documents
identified by him, free of cost by 5.6.10.
9. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy. Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar
S/o Shri sukhlal
Uday Mandir Maliyon Ki Gali
Seduram Ji Ki Haveli
Jodhpur 342 006
2. The PIO
North Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Ajmer Division
Ajmer
3. The Appellate Authority
North Western Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Ajmer Division
Ajmer
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC