Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000373
Dated May 21, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Nagarwal
Name of the Public Authority : Northern Railway, Moradabad
Adjunct to CIC Decision of Even No. dated 19.04.2010
Background
The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order in the captioned case are reproduced below:
1. Para 6. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had quoted 14 decisions of
CIC allowing disclosure of DPC proceedings in his RTI application and also that the PIO
had himself provided the DPC proceedings to other RTI applicants as is evident from
information available on the website and contended that the denial was malafide. The
Commission is surprised to note that information was not provided in this case whereas
similar information was provided in other cases even before the denial in this case and
hence directs the PIO to showcause as to why penalty should nor be imposed upon him
for malafide denial of information. The PIO is directed to submit his written response and
also to appear before the Commission at 10.45 am on 21.5.2010.
Para 7 : The Commission also directs the PIO to provide the Appellant with attested
copies of the DPC proceedings after using Sec. 10(1) to sever parts which are exempt
from disclosure as also of copies of ACRs Information may be provided by 15th May,
2010.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for May 21, 2010.
3. The Railway Board was represented by Shri Shiv Dhan Singh, Jt. Secy. (A) and Shri A.
K. Sen, US(G).
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. In respect of the directive given to the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be
imposed on him for alleged malafide denial of information, the PIO vide his verbal and
written submissions informed the Commission that the DPC proceedings were not
shared with the Appellant as it is being done in the case of other applicants since a
major penalty charge sheet had been issued to the Appellant on 5.8.2008 for his alleged
irregularities in construction of new broad gauge line because of which a decision had
been taken to keep the DPC proceedings in respect of the Appellant in a sealed cover till
such time that the case against the Appellant reaches its finality . The Respondent also
pointed out that besides the major penalty charge sheet in another case too the CVC
had advised for initiation of Major Penalty Proceedings plus recovery of false house rent
allowance as well as penal charges for wrong occupation of Railway Quarters from the
Appellant . Action in this regard is under process. The Respondents further informed the
Commission that the Appellant had filed an O.A. before the CAT for reopening of the
sealed cover challenging his own placement in selection grade. The OA was dismissed
by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.10.2009. It was further brought to the attention of
the Commission that the Appellant had preferred a review petition No. 6/2010 praying for
review of the said order dated 27.10.2009. However, this Review application too was
dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 28.1.2010. The Respondent pointed out
that CAT New Delhi has already adjudicated the matter and has not found any merit in
the contention of the Appellant that he has been wrongly denied placement in Selection
Grade.
6. In his explanatory note dated 20.5.10 the PIO also stated that in the present case,
exemption was initially sought from disclosure of the DPC proceedings and ACRs
because it was seen that the grievance of the Appellant was already before the CAT
New Delhi who had found no merit in the same. However, subsequently, it was decided
to furnish him with copies of the DPC proceedings and also to disclose the grading in his
ACRs. However, even the photocopies of the ACRs asked for have since been given to
Shri Nagarwal. The Respondent insisted that it was not a case of intentional malafide
denial of information to Shri Nagarwal. Moreover, the question of the officer incurring a
financial loss of Rs. 25,000/ per month for the alleged denial of information also does not
arise due to the explanation given above. The Respondent also stated that the order of
the Commission has been complied with and all the information has been provided.
7. In light of the submission provided by the PIO it is the considered opinion of the
undersigned that the Appellant’s contention of having suffered detriment to the tune of
Rs. 25000/ per month because of delay in supply of information under the RTI Act,
seems farfetched and that there is no indication of malafide denial of information to the
Appellant.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr.S. K. Nagarwal,
H. No. 51, Sitaram Colony,
Ram Nagar, Sodalia,
Jaipur 302 019
2. The Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Railways,
Office of Jt. Secretary (G) and CPIOII
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority,
Ministry of Railways,
Office of Adviser (Staff)
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC