CIC: It is hoped that the DG, RPF will take proper remedial measure to ensure that the officers dealing with RTI matters are properly trained in the handling of RTI cases - CIC: Warning issued to then PIO with copy to the Secretary, MWR for information
The appellant vide RTI application dated 31.03.2016 sought information on 3 points regarding correspondence with UPSC in relation to the granting of promotion to him etc. The CPIO provided an interim reply on 22.04.2016. The appellant being aggrieved filed first appeal on 17.05.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) confirmed the CPIO’s reply vide its order dated 30.06.2016. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission.
Grounds for the second appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Representative of the PIO, Shri Roop Kishan, Inspector
During the hearing the representative of the PIO handed over a revised reply dated 06.09.17 . The appellant submitted that he had not received the reply dated 06.09.17 so far from the respondent. He received the reply dated 22.04.2016 and he was not satisfied with the same.
In view of this, the respondent CPIO is directed to resend the reply dated 06.09.17 alongwith annexures to the appellant within 07 days of this order under intimation to the Commission. On perusal of the case record, it is seen that the earlier reply of the then CPIO, Shri Y.K. Joshi dated 22.04.2016 is negligent which was subsequently modified by the PIO, Shri P.K. Agarwal to a beneficial effect. The Commission is of the opinion that the respondent could have provided this second reply in the first place itself i.e. on 22.04.2016 to the appellant.
An advisory is issued to the DG, RPF to look into the quality of the reply sent by the officers under his charge. It is hoped that the DG will take proper remedial measure to ensure that the officers under his administrative control and dealing with RTI matters are properly trained in the handling of RTI cases. Action taken in this regard is instructed to be submitted to the Commission preferably within a period of 03 months from the receipt of this order.
The then respondent CPIO, Shri Y.K. Joshi is issued warning that full, final and comprehensive reply to an RTI application should have been provided within the time period as stipulated under the RTI Act and he should ensure that in future in every case reply to an RTI application is invariably provided within 30 days of receipt of the said RTI application.
The respondent CPIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed by the Commission, more stringent action can be taken against him by the Commission under the provision of the RTI Act.
The respondent PIO submitted that Shri Y.K. Joshi is on deputation outside the railways, to the Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India.
The registry of this bench is directed to send a copy of this warning to the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi for information and appropriate action. With the above direction and warning, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Citation: N K Chaturvedi v. Railway Board in File No.: CIC/RAILB/A/2016/299300, Date of hearing : 07.09.2017