Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001577
Dated 21st January, 2010
Name of the Applicant : MRS. CHARANJIT KAUR
Name of the Public Authority : DLMW, M/O RAILWAY, PATIALA
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 30.03.09 with the PIO, DMW/Patiala stating that
she is the senior most in the cadre of Stenographers and working in pay scale rs.6500-
10500 w.e.f. April'99 and that she had worked as PA to FA & CAO from April'99 to
Oct'03 to the satisfaction of her superiors. However, in spite of her discharging her
duties with sincerity, diligently and obediently, she was posted as PA to Dy.FA & CAO-I
from PA to FA & CAO in Oct'03. She contended in her application that in terms of
Railway Board's letter dated 27.11.89, the Stenographers of pay scale rs.6500-10500
are to be attached with SAG level officers. In this connection she appealed to Dy.FA &
CAO-I vide her letter dated 22.11.05 with copy endorsed to FGA & CAO. But nothing
has been heard so far. In this regard, she has also requested FA & CAO vide her letter
dated 12.03.09, the reply of which is still awaited. In this connection she requested
the status/decision taken by the Administration on her request to be attached to an
SAG level officer. She also stated that her junior has been posted as CA/FA & CAO. In
such circumstances, she had to mark her attendance under the supervision of her
junior for the period from Oct'03 to Jan'09. She requested a copy of rules under which
she was forced to mark her attendance under the staff junior to her and working
below her rank. The PIO replied on 17.04.09 enclosing comments given by
APIO/Accounts vide letter dated 15.04.09. The Dy.FA & CAO-I & APIO (Accounts) vide
his letter dated 15.04.09 stated that the Applicant has been working as PA to Dy. FA &
CAO-I vide letter dated 09.01.04 and that she was allowed to look after the
confidential work of FA & CAO's Secretariat vide officer order dated 19.01.09. Against
above order the Applicant has represented to FA & CAO vide letter dated 12.03.09. As
she was unwilling to take the additional charge of FA & CAO's Secretariat her orders
were cancelled vide office order dated 20.03.09. The attendance of FA & CAO
secretariat is lastly closed by the concerned Gazetted officer i.e. AFA/Effy., therefore
question of marking attendance by the Applicant under the supervision of Junior does
not arise. Not satisfied with this reply, the Applicant filed her First Appeal on 19.05.09
stating that information provided by the PIO is misleading and incorrect and giving
reasons for the same. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.07.09 directed the
CPIO to provide the information to the Applicant within 10 days of issue of the order,
free of cost. The CPIO provided on 20.07.09 information to the Applicant enclosing
comments forwarded by APIO Accounts vide letter dated 18.07.09. However, still not
satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed her Second Appeal on 20.10.09 before the
Commission.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the
hearing for 21st January, 2010.
3 Mr. Vinod Kumar, Dy.CPO-cum-PIO and Mr. Manjeet Kaur, Dy. FA & CAO-cum-
Deemed PIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing
.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the Appellate Authority’s Order the
information was provided by the CPIO to the Appellant within 10 days, enclosing copy
of the comments by the Dy. FA & CAO-I & APIO Accounts on 20.07.09 . It was stated
in the letter that decision has been taken on the Appellant’s representations
submitted to FA&CAO vide letter dated 12.03.09 and on another representation
submitted to Dy. FA&CAO-I vide letter dated 22.11.05 and also adding that there is
no such rule under which an employee can be forced to mark her attendance under
the supervision of a junior official. The Respondent also submitted that in respect of
point 1 for which the Appellant is seeking the answer the information sought by the
her is not available on record. The Respondent also submitted that the AFA/Admn had
informed the Applicant vide letter dated 16.07.09 that she was assigned the duty of
confidential work of FA & CAO’s secretariat. In response to her letter dated 03.02.09,
it was further clarified vide letter dated 12.02.09 that she will be dealing as custodian
of ACRs of Staff and Gazetted officers. She was again advised vide letter dated
09.03.09 to take over the assigned duty/charge. But she had again represented on
12.03.09 against these orders. Since she did not comply with the orders issued by
administration on one pretext or the other, her orders were therefore cancelled vide
S.O.O. No. 09/2009 dated 20.03.09. The Respondent also submitted that AFA
(Efficiency) has the power to transfer an employee of the Appellant’s rank from
branch SAG to JAG and added that no order of the competent authority however, is
available on record. The Appellant, however, stated that she had never refused any
work and that she had, on the other hand, gven in writing that she is willing to take on
additional work.
6. After hearing both sides, the Commission, under section 18(2) of the RTI Act, directs
the PIO to set up an enquiry committee of two Gazetted officers to look into the
matter and to provide the Appellant with the information she is seeking by end
February, 2010 to the Appellant under intimation to the Commission.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mrs. Charanjit kaur
# 325, Type – IV (Spl.)
Diesel Loco Modernisation Works
Patiala, Punjab.
2. The PIO
Diesel Loco Modernisation Works
Ministry of Railway
Patiala – 147 003.
3. The Appellate Authority
Diesel Loco Modernisation Works
Ministry of Railway
Patiala – 147 003.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC