P. K. Sanghi vs North Central Railway on 6 February, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

P. K. Sanghi vs North Central Railway on 6 February, 2019

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/NCRAL/C/2017/182056

P K Sanghi                                        ...िशकायतकता /Complainant


                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम


1. CPIO, M/o Railways, North                          ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Central Railway, Allahabad.



Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 07-05-2015           FA    : 12-06-2015          Complaint: 24-10-2016
CPIO : 19-05-2015, 28-
                           FAO : Not on Record.        Hearing: 05-02-2019
09-2015


                                  ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Railways, North Central Railway, Allahabad seeking following information:-

"The following information under RTI Act may be provided in the case of Asstt. Station Master, Cat. 22 of Employment Notice No. 2/2006:-

Page 1 of 4

i) No. of candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination on two (2) dates separately?

ii) In case of how many candidates out of (i) above, original OMR's bubbling differed from duplicate carbon copies in preliminary exam?

iii) What are the roll nos., name and addresses of such candidates?

iv) No. of candidates appeared in the Main Examination?

v) In case of, how many candidates, out of (iv) above, bubbling in original OMR's differed from duplicate carbon copies in Main examination?

vi) What are the roll nos., name and addresses of such candidates?

The above information is required by me in defense in a case registered against me by CBI vide RC0062d009A0022."

2. In response to the RTI application dated 07-05-2015, the CPIO sent a reply to the complainant vide letter dated 19-05-2015 informing that his RTI application was transferred u/Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad. On 28-09-2015, the CPIO, North Central Railway, Allahabad replied to the complainant informing that the sought for information on point nos. (i) to (vi) is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO reply(s), the complainant filed the first appeal dated 12-06-2015. There is no first appellate authority order. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that legal action should be initiated against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act for not providing the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The complainant was not present despite notice. Mr. Sushil Kumar Yadav, Dy. CVO, North Central Railway, Allahabad and Mr. Surendra Kumar, Member Secretary, RRB, Allahabad participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

Page 2 of 4

4. The respondent submitted that the subject matter of this RTI application forms part of the investigation being done by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and original copy of the relevant records are in the custody of the CBI. However, photo copies of the records were available with them as on the date of RTI application which could not be authenticated due to lack of original records. Further, he stated that furnishing of any information would impede the ongoing process of investigation. Hence, the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 and this position had been communicated to the complainant vide letter dated 28.09.2015. However, he agreed to provide the numerical figure on point nos. (i) and (iv) relating to no. of candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination on two (2) different dates and main examination as available in copies of the record.

Decision:

5. This Commission observed that the explanation provided by the respondent is satisfactory and no malafide is involved on the part of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

6. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.

7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                               नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                           Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                        Information Commissioner (सू

                                                            दनांक / Date 05.02.2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)



                                                                           Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
1.    The CPIO
      M/o Railway, H.Q. office,
      North Central Railway,
      Subedarganj, Allahabad - 211033.

2.    P K Sanghi




                                         Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission