Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Kumar vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 30 January, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NRALF/A/2022/610927-UM
Mr. SANJEEV KUMAR
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
The CPIO/ Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
O/o The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Firozpur Division,
Firozpur, Punjab-152001
.... प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.01.2023
Date of Decision : 30.01.2023
Date of RTI application 11.01.2022
CPIO's response 07.02.2022
Date of the First Appeal 08.02.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 09.02.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-
"Copies of all correspondences made by the concerned officer regarding non-availability of APAR of the employee before releasing the Suitability list. (Correspondences made between 07.05.2018- 12.10.2021)."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 07.02.2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 09.02.2022, informed the Appellant that a suitable reply has already been given by CPIO on 04.02.2020. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing through AC. Respondent: The respondent Shri Yoginder Kumar Tyagi, Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer attended the hearing through AC.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that the information was wrongly denied to him by the CPIO. The appellant further stated that the information sought by him was very specific and it pertains to him only.
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that the information sought pertains to third party, hence, it was denied to the appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant was specific, clear and pertains to him only but the CPIO deliberately denied the information to the appellant. This kind of behavior on the part of the officers towards RTI is totally unacceptable. In view of the above, the Commission directs the registry of this bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the aforesaid CPIO for personal appearance to explain why penal action of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Thousand Rupees) as per Section 20 (1) and disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him for deliberately Page 2 of 3 denying the information to the appellant. Taking a serious view of the conduct of the CPIO in handling the RTI application, the Commission directs him to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining the reasons, along with the comments of the DRM, Northern Railway, Firozepur before 28.02.2023, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 30.01.2023 Page 3 of 3