Central Information Commission
R Vijaya Laxmi vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 16 April, 2018
ककककककककककककककककक
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
कककककककककककककककक
Baba Gangnath Marg,
ककककककक, कककककककक -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No :CIC/SCRLS/A/2017/182020
In the matter of:
R Vijaya Laxmi
...Appellant
Vs.
PIO and Sr Divl Personnel Officer, Divisional
Office, 4th floor, Sanchalan Bhavan, South Central
Railway,
Secunderbad. ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 22.02.2016
CPIO reply : Not on Record
First Appeal : 27.05.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 18.10.2016
Date of hearing : 02.04.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 22.02.2016 sought certified copies of all orders bestowing pensionary benefits on Sri R Vijay Kumar who had retired as Senior Goods Guard at Bhadrachalam Station Road in Khammam district including the retirement orders, P.P.O number, drawee bank particulars, name of the nominee, amount of pension sanctioned, combined nomination form of the provident fund no. 03263708 and CGGIS & DCRG. The CPIO's 1 reply and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order were not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 18.10.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri R.Venkateshwarlu,
Assistant Personnel Officer cum APIO,
South Central Railway
The case paper did not show any reply from the respondent authority to the appellant.
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letters dated 03.05.2016 and 25.03.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed. Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The appellant was not present to plead for his case. On perusal of the case record, it was seen that this is a case which is squarely covered u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent authority accordingly sent a letter to the third party concerned inviting his no objection before providing with the sought for information to the third party concerned i.e. the present appellant. However, despite this, the respondent authority in a case of suo moto disclosure mode provided all the sought for information to the appellant even when they did not receive any NOC from the third party 2 concerned i.e. SH. R Vijay kumar. Moreover, as the appellant was not present to contest his case, interference of the Commission is not called for.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3