The notice of Show Cause hearing should have been issued by name to the then PIO - It was instead sent to the PIO and the current PIO appeared for hearing – CIC noted that the SCN was not properly served by the registry; Next date fixed for hearing
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 07.10.2015 seeking certified copy of reservation chart of Train No. 12430 (AC Spl.) of 14.9.2915, 1st AC and 2nd AC; and Train No. 12230 (Lucknow Mail) of 27.09.2015 - 1st A.C. and 2nd A.C.
2. The CPIO responded on 12.11.2015. The appellant filed first appeal dated 30.11.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 15.12.2015. The appellant filed a second appeal to the Commission on 27.1.2016 requesting for information sought.
3. Both the parties did not participate in the hearing.
4. From the material available on record it is evident that the Asstt. Commercial Manager, New Delhi, vide letter dated 12.11.2015 had informed the appellant that for reservation chart, he has to deposit Rs. 1145/- per page, with a total of Rs. 25190/- (Rs.1145x22 pages) and after depositing the said amount the reservation charts will be provided.
5. The CPIOs/their representatives did not participate in the hearing inspite of Commission’s hearing notice.
6. The respondent No.2 should provide information/documents, free of cost to the appellant, within 7 days of this order.
7. The Chairman, Railway Board is advised to change their rules with respect to photo copying charges to bring it in conformity with the RTI Act.
8. The respondent No.2 is directed to provide information/documents, free of cost to the appellant, within 7 days of this order.
9. The respondents are directed to show cause, within 7 days of this order, why action should not be taken against them for trying to deny information by not attending the hearing.
10. The respondents are directed to be present personally before the Commission on 6.1.2017 at 10.30 A.M. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Adjunct Order : 11.10.2017
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Commercial Manager
In the present case, the respondent PIO, Shri Ajay Kumar, Sr. Commercial Manager appeared at the hearing before the CIC whereas the said show cause notice was issued to the CPIO, RTI Cell and the then CPIO, Chief Commercial Manager vide the coordinate bench order dated 27.12.2016. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Commercial Manager while explaining his locus standi in the present case submitted that since the notice of the show cause hearing was addressed to the CPIO, RTI Cell, he had come to attend the hearing as a representative. On checking the necessary records it was noted that the show cause notice in this case was not properly issued to the officers whose explanations were called for. The notice of Show Cause hearing should have been issued by name to the then PIO cum chief Commercial Manager, New Delhi instead of merely sending the same to the CPIO, Chief Commercial Manager, New Delhi. Due to this lapse the Sr. Commercial Manager Sh. Ajay Kumar, who was not at all involved in the case appeared as a representative only and he rightfully stated that he was not the concerned person as stated in the said order of the CIC.
In view of the fact that the said show cause notice was not properly served by the concerned registry on the rightful officers, it is instructed that the show cause hearing is to be fixed once again by the registry.
The concerned registry of the Commission is accordingly directed to fix the requisite show cause hearing and issue notices to the then CPIO, RTI cell, railway board and the then CPIO & Chief Commercial Manager, NR. Both the above stated CPIOs are directed to submit written explanation(s), if any, to the Commission and also be present without fail on the next date of hearing before the CIC.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Citation: Sanjay Sharma v. Railway Board in File No.: CIC/RK /A/2016/000795-AB, Adjunct Order : 11.10.2017