RAILWAY SAMACHAR

To,
Hon'ble Additional General Manager
&
Appellate Authority/RTIA
Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai-20.

Sub.: Appeal against incomplete, misleading information and concealment of material information to shield the alleged corrupt railway employees and their protecting officers with reference to RTI application dated 10.09.2008, provided on 15.10.2008, received by undersigned on dated 23.10.2008.
Ref.: Letter no. G.542/2/2008/703, dated 15.10.2008 signed by Shri Aditya Kumar, DGM/G & CPIO/WR.

Respected Sir,

The deficiency/shortcomings by/conveyed by various concerned PIO's and officers i.e.
(i) PIO & DyCVO/E/CCG's note no. E/61/88/1/Vol.I, dtd. 10.10.2008,
(ii) PIO & DyCCO/CCG's note no. C.358/100/RTI/2008/09/703, dtd. 29.09.2008 and
(iii) PIO & DyCPO/HQ/CCG's note no. G.542/2/2008/703, dtd. 07.10.2008 are as below...

1. SDGM & CVO/CCG's note no. E/61/88/1/Vol.I, Dtd. 10.10.2008.

Q.2. (iii) Action in the vigilance case not provided, copy of action taken be provided under RTI. It may also be advised how Sh. Sanjay Sharma was posted on such a sensitive post where such a vigilance record? Who gave the vigilance clearance? The copy of the vigilance checks against Sh. Sharma and action taken be advised.


(iv) The information was very specific all the vigilance cases against the above said employees were covered in the request. However as usual vigilance avoided/violated the RTI provisions by not providing / concealing the material information. Complete copy of notings and correspondence side of vigilance file mentioned in the item (iv) of the note be provided. Action for concealing the facts should also be taken, why the vigilance investigation is not provided with enclosers and day to day monitoring of case?

> Regarding DA & SCM'G's orders and NIP Annexure 'F', the information provided does not clarify whether vigilance was consulted before implementing the DA's orders, if so, the vigilance views on such a high profile case be provided, which was raised by SDGM before GM made note dtd. 14.03.2007, regarding sheltering the two alleged TTE's of CCM's flying squad in the subject case. This attitude was further confirmed by Disciplinary Authority. The copy of vigilance view and further action taken be provided under RTI Act provisions and action for concealing this be taken.

> What action taken on further diluting the case by Appellate authority and Dy CCM/G/CCG that too without any categorical speaking order. Whether vigilance took any cognisance to the culprit friendly attitude of DA & AA...? Copies of proceedings be provided.

> Why the Annexures in support of SF-5 were not provided does it not covered under RTI Act 2005? Is it not part of information? Please take action against the concealment of material fact/information.

(v) Copy of concerned file processing for NOC of culprit staff is not provided. Who is responsible for issuing NOC in favour of accused of Major action at the instance of vigilance department only. Whether any enquiry conducted on the issue and persons behind the mischief taken up? The copy of action taken be provided.

Q.3. Copy of the file proceedings not provided. It is not understood why the material record information is being concealed? What action was taken on SDGM's note dtd. 14.03.2007 marked to CCM & GM? Whether the further proceedings/orders by GM & CCM are not covered under RTI Act? Why it is concealed? The same may please be provided under RTI Act 2005 and copy of proceedings be provided.

It should also be advised that how and on whose orders both the concerned employees were kept on the same post despite of raising the issue by SDGM up to General Manager's level for more than one year and on what grounds? Complete proceedings copy be provided. Is it not the concealment of material documentary information under RTI Act 2005? Please get it examined and provide the same at the earliest.

Q.4. In reply to Q.3, SDGM's note dtd. 14.03.2007 and other letters indicate that SDGM raised the issue of not repatriating the two alleged TTE's from CCM's flying squad and in reply to Q.4 it is mentioned that it does not pertaining to Vigilance. Appellate Authority may please decide which answer is correct; and what is the approach of vigilance department to RTI Act? Please provide copies of file records of concerned case.

Q.5. The reply is certainly misleading, incorrect and violative of RTI Act provisions. The DAR action was initiated out of vigilance investigation and no DAR file is maintained by vigilance is how for correct, may please be examined by Appellate Authority. If no file is maintained by vigilance that what happened to vigilance checks and how they are monitored...?
Please provide the complete copy of vigilance file and the responsibility for incorrect information be fixed.

Q.6. The copy of vigilance case is not provided. The reason for concealment of material information may please be got examined by Appellate Authority and copy of vigilance file be provided under RTI Act 2005.

It has been mentioned that reconsideration Advise for AA was sent on dtd. 22.09.2008, but the copy of same not provided and it is not clear that what action was taken at the time when DA diluted the case...? The proceedings took place on I.O.'s report and DA's decision may please be provided under RTI Act, 2005.

Regarding para 1 to 4 below Q.6 following information be provided which CPIO has not given...

PARA-1: The copy of Decoy check conducted by Sh. Mahendra Kumar Dayaram, CVI/CCG, on unauthorised Travel Agent ( Registration no.2007/09/058 ) with further proceedings. Copy of the DIARY seized during vigilance check bearing the names of both culprits - Sh. Sanjay Sharma & Sh. Harish Tiwari - as ''Regular Haftakhor'' and action taken on the said TTE's by RPF Staff who prosecuted the Tout.

PARA-2. Copy of the letter dtd. 26.10.2008 written to Board Vigilance and further orders regarding the said TTE's of CCM's flying squad. What action recommended by Board Vigilance and SDGM/WR...?

PARA-3: Copy of the Board's letter dtd. 08.01.2008 for repatriation of both concerned TTEs from the sensitive and lucrative post in CCM's flying squad and further action taken by WR Vigilance, copy of concerned file be provided and following information be also provided which was avoided by PIO Vigilance and CPIO/WR.

(I) Despite of SDGM's note dtd. 14.03.2007 to GM and further Board's letter dtd. 08.01.2008 why the both concerned TTEs were allowed to LOOT in the CCM's flying squad upto dtd. 18.08.2008 as per concluding para of the note, on what grounds and by whose orders they were retained...? What action for not adhering to Board Vigilance was taken...?

(II) Whether this was advised to DA & AA in vigilance advise who not only favoured but sheltered the both alleged TTEs, is there any plan to set the case reviewed at GM's level by WR Vigilance...?

PARA-4: Regarding para-4 the information provided shows that both the TTEs were vide ltr. no. E/C/839/24/Vol.XI, dtd. 29.04.2008 of GM/E were transferred and posted as Sr.TC & Sr.TTE/BCT. Further vide ltr. no. E/C/839/11(spl.squad)Vol.II, dtd. 05.06.2008 of Sr.DCM/E/BCT were posted at Sr.TTE/ST, where as per para-4 and Annexer 'L' ltr. no. E/C/839/4/24, dtd. 20.08.2008 of APO/T&C were physically releaved on dtd. 18.08.2008. Despite of Board's recommendations and SDGM/WR's continued pursuance how and on what grounds and authority they were retained in the CCM's Squad...? Please provide the copy of concerned file with complete details and material information whether it was done only to set their DAR cases decided by favourite officer at H.Q. ...?

> When they were repatriated to BCT Division on dtd. 18.08.2008, how and under which rule Dy CCM/G/CCG was their Appellate Authority...? The copy of supporting rules should also be provided. The copy of concerned DAR/Vigilance file should also be provided under RTI Act, 2005.

2. Dy CPO/HQ/CCG & PIO's note no. G/542/2008/703, dtd. 07.10.2008 (page-148)

(i) SPO/W/CCG's note no. E/Wel/124/14/8(207-08), dtd. 08.10.2008. In the said note in item (i) of Q.2 the copy of file proceedings of CCM's office and personnel department not provided. The procedure for calling for GM's award nominations and further processing procedure should be provided and it should be advised that whether the same procedure was adopted in the case of Sh. Sanjay Sharma, TTE/CCM's flying squad...? It should also be advised whether the citation received was duely approved by PHOD i.e. CCM in connection with GM's award notification...? Whether the proposal of CCM's office was examined by Screening Committee and recommended to GM by the Committee should be provided along with the copy of said record in material form and copy of concerned file record be provided. Whether SCM/G/II is competent to directly sending the recommendations without personal approval of PHOD and CCM...?

(ii) In the item (ii) it is mentioned that no separate citation was received from CCM, then how it was considered? The citations received from CCM's approval be provided with the copy of file proceedings in support of the same. Copy of CCM's office file and personnel department file be provided.

(iii) SCM/G's note no. C/331/8/Vol.VI, dtd. 17.03.08 (CP-147), As per above note it appears that the name of Shri Sanjay Sharma, accused TTE, was not approved by CCM for GM's award nominations, it was got added by SCM/G without CCM's personal approval. The copy of concerned file proceedings be provided as entry (i) of the note doesn't indicate the CCM's approval. Entry (ii) has specifically mentioned as (citation duely approved by CCM is enclosed). Complete record be provided under RTI Act 2005. The note of SCM/G/II is not in reference to GM award, it is a general routine note, please get it examined that whether it was issued from the GM award file or otherwise and advise the material information under RTI Act 2005.

4. APO/T&C's note no. E/C/839/4/24/ RTI (Suresh Tripathi) dtd. 03.10.2008. (CP- 144/145)

> With reference to item 3 it is advised that vigilance vide note no. E/61/2006/02/115/C/VI/N/BCT, dtd. 22.09.2006 recommended for repatriation of the both concerned TTE's which was further reminded several time including SDGM's note and Boards orders, but the repatriation order was issued on dtd. 29.04.2008 and further posting orders were issued by BCT Division on dtd. 05.06.2008 and finally said two accused staff could be relieved only on dtd. 18.08.2008.

In this connection following information has been concealed or not provided deliberately:-

a) Why it took two years time to repatriate the accused TTE's?

b) What is the normal term in CCM squad and how much time both the TTE's spent in CCM's flying squad? Whether their term was extended in the CCM's flying squad despite of Major DAR action, if so, with whose orders? The copy of file proceedings be provided with supporting rules.

c) Despite of issuing repatriation orders on dtd. 29.04.08 why these two alleged TTE's were retained up to dtd. 18.08.2008 i.e. four months where their payment was charged and with whose orders and what authority with their fresh posting orders were issued by BCT Division on dtd. 05.06.2008.

d) With reference to item four it is advised that both the TTE's was repatriated as per vigilance advise, why the same action was taken after two years? What is the normal tenure in CCM's flying squad? How much total period the two alleged TTE's posted in the CCM's flying squad?

5. With reference to Dy CPO/HQ/CCG's note no. DAR/308/0 (Misc.), dtd. 30.09.2008, (CP-138).
> It is pointed out that only certain portion of DAR file has been provided, the reason for concealing the material information i.e. enclosures of chargesheet and noting side of concerned file not provided where as the same are part of information. AGM & Appellate Authority may please provide the same and fix responsibility concealing the main information.
Following information is also not provided:-
Whether vigilance advise was taken before issue of penalty? The copy of file proceedings be provided.

3. DyCCO and PIO Commercial note no. C/358/100/RTI/2008/09/703, dated 29.08.2008 (CP-15 of document)

(i) With reference to reply/information item 2(i), it has been advised that there was no recommendation for the award to both the accused TTE's where as personnel department cited SCM/G's note dated 17.03.2008 as recommendation, please get it examined which information is correct? Following point be got examined and information under RTI Act be provided under RTI Act 2005.
> When no recommendation from CCM was sent, how the name of alleged staff included in the award list?

(ii) When SCM/G was aware of the fact that Shri Sanjay Sharma was undergoing major penalty proceedings and the note at CP-11 bearing GM's endorsements dtd. 12.02.2002, why the same was not advised to Personnel Department and General Manager's office?

(iii) Whether the note of SCM/G dtd. 17.03.2008 at CP-12 was approved by CCM or otherwise? When it was known to SCM/G that Shri Sanjay Sharma was under major DAR Action, and how he advised SPO/W for his GM award? SCM/G is also his Disciplinary Authority in the same case? The copy of file proceedings may be provided in support of the above information.

(iv) Vigilance NOC for awards is taken before the case is put up to GM or after GM's approval this may please be advised with supporting rule.

(v) The reply of item (i) and (ii) are in contradiction with SCM/G's note dtd. 17.03.2008, this appears to be misleading information, please provide the copy of concerned file.

(vi) With reference item (iii) at CP-13, the complete record of concerned file be provided. Why two years time was taken to implement the vigilance advise, with whose orders the accused staff stayed in CCM's flying squad be provided. What was their normal term? If any extension granted, the copy of proceedings on file be provided.

(vii) With reference to item (iv) at CP-12, it is advised that the alleged TTE's were repatriated on vigilance advise on 18.08.2008, please advise why it took two years time even after SDGM raised the issue at GM's level, vide his note dtd. 14.03.2007, what action was taken on that, the copy of proceedings on file be provided in support of the same.

(viii) Regarding item (vi) the copy of the DAR proceedings NP/CP side should be provided and it should be advised that how much time the case was pending with DA and for what reasons? The NP/CP side of concerned department case file be provided in support of the reply.

It appeals that the material information is concealed deliberately by all these PIO's and CPIO's also failed to ensure the dissemination of correct information, please get it examined and provide complete and proper information at the earliest.

Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely,

Suresh Tripathi,


AGM & Appellate Authority RTI Cell,
Western Railway, HQ.
Churchgate, Mumbai-20