Central Information Commission
Ashwin Shukla vs Railway Board on 19 September, 2017
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
लब बि डंग (पो ट ऑ फस के पास)
Club Building (Near Post Office)
ओ ड जेन यू कपस, नई "द ल -110067
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No.: CIC/AB/A/2016/001768
In the matter of:
Ashwin Shukla ...Appellant
Vs.
DPG & CPIO- RTI Cell,
Room No. 507, 5th Floor,
Railway Board, New Delhi - 110001 ...Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 20.01.2016
CPIO reply : 23.03.2016
First Appeal : 21.04.2016
FAA Order : 15.06.2016
Second Appeal : 18.07.2016
Date of hearing : 05.09.2017
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 20.01.2016 sought information on 7 points: certified copy of the closure advice issued by Railway Board (Vigilance) division consequent to the passing of final order by the DA in the DAR case against him, certified copy of the vigilance investigation report which led to the DAR action on him, certified copies of all correspondence between zonal railway, railway board and CVC, including internal notings within these organisations and other documents regarding vigilance investigation which led to the DAR action against him, certified copies of various complaints/ representations received by Zonal Railway, railway Board and CVC regarding this case or DAR action in this case and certified copies of various complaints/ representations/ other correspondence received by Railway Board or WCR regarding transfer, posting or other service matters and issues connected thereto, 1 of Shri C.L Meena, Shri V.K Sharma, Shri K.S Krishna Kumar and the appellant from CY 2008 till date.
Grounds for the second appeal The CPIO did not provide the information.
Interim Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : PIO, Shri Ranjan Kumar,
Director(Vigilance)
During the hearing the respondent submitted that they had provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 23.03.2016 which is just and proper and the case should be dismissed. The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the case record, it is seen that reply on para (4)(a) is proper. Information in regard to the paras 4(b) to (g) was denied as it was a joint enquiry and severability u/s 10(1) of the RTI Act is also not possible. The CPIO relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Despande Vs CIC and others.
The appellant contended that it was not a joint enquiry case. Girish Ramchandra's case is not applicable in the present context as he had sought information about himself. He relied on two decision of the Commission in case numbers (1) 374/ICPB/2006 of 05.03.2007 and (2) 80/ICPB/2006 of 20.08.2006. He also contested the finding of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in his second appeal memo submitted before the CIC.
2The Commission observes that it was a vigilance case and five people were involved for different lapses. However, the Commission further observes that as both the parties submitted contradictory facts to the Commission during the hearing, it is necessary to peruse the concerned file(s)/record(s) to arrive at the correct decision in the case in the interest of justice.
The CPIO, Railway Board and Director(Vigilance) is directed to bring the complete case record(s)/file(s) on the next date of hearing for perusal of the commission.
The registry is directed to fix the next date of hearing in the first week of October.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 3