Central Information Commission
Arun Kumar Behera vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 4 April, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SERLK/A/2020/141213 -UM
Mr. Arun Kumar Behera
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Nodal officer (RTI Cell)
South Eastern Railway Divisional Railway
Kharagpur Worshop, Pin-721301
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2022
Date of Decision : 04.04.2022
Date of RTI application 15.07.2020
CPIO's response 18.09.2020
Date of the First Appeal 09.09.2020
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.12.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 02 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 18.09.2020, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar Behera, participated through AC, Respondent: Absent.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Appellant.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Applications stated that he had sought information regarding action on a letter which pertains to defamation against him. He further stated that improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfil his purpose. He said he was a very respectable man and an Indian Railways billiards player. Some allegations were levelled up against him and that an inquiry was conducted which proved that the charges were false, he said and added that he was thereafter threatened by the Respondent (Mr. B.D. Mondal, S.S.E. and Mr. Ashok Chattopadhyay, A.W.M.) wherein they had asked him not to mention about the inquiry to anybody or else they would kidnap his family and suspend him from his service. He informed the Commission that the turn of events has left him mentally unstable. When queried, he informed the Commission that the Respondent has replied to the RTI Application and informed him that the information sought is very old and hence cannot be furnished as the records are not traceable. The requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and on perusal of records, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and moreover there appears deliberate attempt to deny Page 2 of 3 information Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent to make due efforts to search for records and furnish a suitable and an updated revised reply to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 35 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 04.04.2022 Page 3 of 3