Central Information Commission
Panyam Sudhakar Rao vs South Central Railway (Secunderabad) on 24 July, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/SCRLS/A/2017/116712
In the matter of:
Panyam Sudhakar Rao
...Appellant
Vs.
APIO/SPO/T, South Central Railway,
General Manager's Office, Personnel Branch,
IV floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500071 ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 27.12.2016
CPIO reply : 09.02.2017
First Appeal : 02.02.2017
FAA Order : Not on record
Second Appeal : 02.03.2017
Date of hearing : 12.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 27.12.2016, sought information on four points as under;
1. Copy of common notification for filling of group-D vacancies in application dated 17.08.2012
2. Copy of acknowledgement issued by the office of the CWM/CRS/TPTY dated 23.08.2012 with respect to the application.
3. Copies of course completion certificates as Act apprentice in S.C. Railways issued by CWM/CRS/TPYS, dated: 04.06.2011.
4. Copies of course completion certificates of Act apprentice in S.C. Railways, Sri. Penumudi Vinod Kumar dated: 29.11.2011 & 16 others The CPIO replied on 09.02.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order 1 is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 02.03.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri A.J.V. Prakash Kumar,
Senior Personnel Officer cum PIO,
South Central Railway
During the hearing, the respondent PIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 09.02.2017. The reply furnished to the appellant is just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
Since the second page of the RTI application 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 relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the sought for information is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
From the perusal of the application, it seems that it is a public grievance case; the Commission is not a proper forum for settling public/personal grievances.
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 2