Central Information Commission
Amti Kumar Dogra vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 8 September, 2020
CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470
In the matter of:
Amit Kumar Dogra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
CPIO/Engineering,
Northern Railway,
Ferozepur,
Punjab
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 11.04.2018 FA : 13.06.2018 SA : Nil
CPIO : 08.05.2018 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 02.09.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Page 1 of 6
CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470
Respondent: Shri Devendra Kumar, DEN (Land) and Shri Jai Singh, DPO,
Northern Railway, Firozpur, Punjab, heard over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an online RTI application on11.04.2018, seeking information on four points pertaining to a letter No.807-E/0/Misc./CIC dated 08/06/17 whereby instructions were issued stating that all class IV employees now will do their sign instead of marking P in attendance register. Some Senior subordinates like S.S.E. (P. Way), S.S.E.(Works), S.S.E.(Signal), C.M.I. & T.I. mostly remain out of their Headquarter. In this regard, he sought following information;
1. In the absence of Senior Subordinate, If Class IV employee is on leave or absent from duty, then who will mark their leave or absent in their attendance register.
2. In the absence of Senior Subordinate, who will be responsible if attendance register is blank, where there is only one Senior Subordinate?
3. In the absence of Senior Subordinate, will attendance register remain vacant till the senior subordinate arrives to their headquarter.
4. In the absence of Senior Subordinate, can ministerial staff like Ch. O.S, O.S, Senior Clerk or Clerk mark the class IV employee absent or leave in attendance register.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 08.05.2018, stated that the information sought by appellant is outside the purview of RTI Act, 2005, there being no document asked by him. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated13.06.2018. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Page 2 of 6CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to take suitable action against the concerned CPIO.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant relied on his written submissions dated Nil and submitted that since he is currently located in Himachal Pradesh, he is not in a position to defend his case.
The written submissions dated Nil filed by the appellant were taken on record.
The respondent, Shri Devendra Kumar, submitted that the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, has not sought any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has merely sought answers to his hypothetical queries without specifying any particular department with respect to which the answers are being sought. Therefore, vide letter dated 08.05.2018, the appellant was informed that the information sought by appellant is outside the purview of RTI Act, 2005 as no documents have been sought by him. He further submitted that in case the appellant desires to obtain the general policy with regards to marking of attendance, the same can be obtained from the Personnel department and furnished to the appellant.
The respondent, Shri Jai Singh, reiterated the contents of his written submissions and submitted that an employee is himself responsible for the proper discharge of his duties, failing which disciplinary action is initiated by the concerned Page 3 of 6 CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470 department. He further submitted that the appellant has sought answers to his queries, which is beyond the purview of the RTI Act.
The written submissions dated 19.08.2020, filed by APO cum APIO, Firozpur, were taken on record.
The written submissions dated 24.08.2020, filed by Sr. DMM/FZR, were taken on record.
The written submissions dated 27.08.2020, filed by CPIO/Engg, were taken on record.
Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. In the instant matter, the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, has sought answers to situational queries, which is clearly outside the purview of the RTI Act. The Commission, further, observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has held as under:
"35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be Page 4 of 6 CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470 maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............."
In view of the above, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 02.09.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/NRALF/A/2018/628470 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) & ADRM Northern Railway, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Punjab
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) CPIO/Engineering, Northern Railway, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Punjab
3. Shri Amit Kumar Dogra Page 6 of 6