Central Information Commission
Mranil Kumar Srivastava vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/VS/A/2014/000761/BJ
Appellant : Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava
S/o Shri S. P. Srivastava
Asstt. Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force,
Northern Railway, Partapgarh - 230001
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : CPIO
Northern Railways
O/o the DRM
Hazratganj, Lucknow - 226001
Date of hearing : 30/05/2016
Date of Decision : 30/05/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 30.12.2013
CPIO's response 05.02.2014
Date of filing the First appeal 05.02.2014
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record.
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 03.03.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant through his RTI application having 06 queries spread over 03 pages had basically sought information related to his pay for the period 07/07/2007 to 01/08/2007 (26 days). For the mentioned period he was on medical leave but his pay had been deducted by the department. Aggrieved with this deduction he filed this RTI application seeking payment of deducted salary and his LWOP be considered as LAP, he is also aggrieved of being wrongly Page 1 of 3 implicated in FIR No. 260/11 U/s 160(B) for the incident that happened on 08/06/2011 when he was on leave etc..
The CPIO vide reply dated 05/02/2014 had given pointwise information to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the information the appellant approached the FAA on 05/02/2014. However, no order of the FAA is on the record.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent;
Both the parties remained absent during the hearing. From the records it is observed that on 05/02/2014 some reply had been furnished to the appellant but it is quite vague and ambiguous. The Commission is not satisfied with this reply furnished to the appellant. DECISION:
Since both the parties remained absent, the exact nature of information sought by the appellant and the response of the respondent is not clear. The respondent is directed to
(a) Provide pointwise information explaining the position of rules and justification for the reply sent to the appellant on 05/02/2014.
(b) To showcause why action should not be taken against him for not attending the hearing, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal stands disposed with above directions.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Page 2 of 3 Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3