Central Information Commission
Mr.G Vinay Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 6 March, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002385
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Date of Hearing : March 6, 2012.
Date of Decision : March 6, 2012.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri G Vinay Kumar
Plot No. 27, Fourth Phase
Survey No. 144 & 145, Saraswarti Nagar Colony
Lothkunda
Secunderabad - 500 015.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
South Central Railway
O/o the Dy.CPO/Wel & IT, Head Quarters
General Manager's Office, Personnel branch
Secunderabad (AP)
Representative : Shri PVSSS Rao, CPIO
Shri Sandeep Jain, Sr.Divl. Engr.
Dr.H Srinivas, APIO, SC Rly
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002385
ORDER
Background.
1. The RTI Application dated 5.2.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, South Central Railway, Secunderbad seeking the following information.
1) My position in the seniority list of JE/I/Works and the list of employees who have super ceded him as Section engineer/Works.
2) I may be informed the reasons for not promoting me as Section Engineer/Works prior to promoting mys immediate junior as Section Engineer/Works.
3) I may be supplied with a attested copy of service register together with LLR cards from his date of appointment to till date.
The PIO replied on 25.2.10 enclosing the required documents in response to point 1 and 2 while transferring the point 3 to Sr.DPO/HYB. Instead of filing the first appeal the Applicant filed a fresh RTI Application on 7.10.10 in which he asked for the copy of letter addressed to DRM/P/HYB as stated under item 2 of Note No.P/E/RTIA/Works dated 25.2.10 sent to him under the cover of office letter No.P.RTI/1102/2010 dated 25.2.10 besides the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. The PIO replied to this RTI application on 26.10.10 enclosing the reply forwarded by the SPO/E&HQ along with enclosures. Not satisfied with this information the Applicant filed his first appeal seeking the information once again . The Appellate Authority replied on 15.12.10 providing further clarifications against point 1, 2 & 3 while enclosing the copy of letter required against point 1. He also informed the Appellant that since the number and date of charge memorandum is not mentioned it is not possible to furnish the details. With regard to point 3 the Appellate Authority stated that as per the seniority list Shri G Vinay Kumar is senior to Shri Yadagiri Veeriah (SC) who has been promoted as SE/W . Being aggrieved with this reply the Appellant filed his second appeal before the Commission.
Decision
2. During the hearing the Commission noted that the Appellant is seeking information related to the major penalty imposed upon him as indicated in the APO/E&HO letter dated 25.2.2010. The Respondent Mr.Sandeep Jain informed the Commission that it seems from a letter written to the Personnel branch by his predecessor that a major penalty was imposed on the Appellant while he was serving in Secunderabad division some time in 20012002 and that therefore the Appellant was informed that a case seems to be pending against him(the Appellant). The Respondent however added that all efforts to locate further information about the case failed since the information according to him is more than 10 years old. On being enquired by the Commission he also added that in the copy of service register which has already been provided to the Appellant there is no mention about any penalty having been served on the Appellant. The Respondent also opined that perhaps the penalty was quashed since there seems to be no record of the penalty. A letter sent to various field units asking them to locate any information in this connection also yielded no results according to the Respondent . The Respondent however requested the Commission to provide them with some more time to confirm non availability of information sought by the Appellant.
3. The Commission after hearing the Respondents directs the PIO, Shri Sandeep Jain to ensure that this search is completed within one month of receipt of this order and the Appellant to be informed categorically in writing whether the information is traceable or not and if yes, to provide the information to the Appellant.
4. The Commission, however keeping in view the fact that there is no record of any penalty having been imposed upon the Appellant recommends that the Public Authority review the Appellant's case for promotion in the light of the facts that have emerged and take action accordingly.
5. The appeal is disposed off with the above direction.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri G Vinay Kumar Plot No. 27, Fourth Phase Survey No. 144 & 145, Saraswarti Nagar Colony Lothkunda Secunderabad - 500 015.
2. The Public Information Officer South Central Railway O/o the Dy.CPO/Wel & IT, Head Quarters General Manager's Office, Personnel branch Secunderabad (AP)
3. The Appellate Authority South Central Railway O/o the Dy.CPO/Wel & IT, Head Quarters General Manager's Office, Personnel branch Secunderabad (AP)
4. Officer In charge, NIC.
In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate what information has not been provided.