Central Information Commission
Shankar Poddar vs South East Central Railway on 17 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/C/2024/102883 CIC/SERLK/C/2024/106601
CIC/SERLK/C/2024/109151 CIC/SECRL/C/2024/132601
Shankar Poddar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Workshop
Personnel Officer, South
Eastern Railway, Kharagpur
Workshop, Kharagpur - 721301
CPIO,
Office of the Dy. Chief
Mechanical Engineer
(Production), South Eastern
Railway, Kharagpur Workshop,
Kharagpur - 721301
CPIO,
South Eastern Railway,
Kharagpur Workshop,
P O - Kharagpur, West
Midnapur, West Bengal-721301 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2025
Date of Decision : 16.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the Complainant is
common, and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Page 1 of 16
(1) CIC/SERLK/C/2024/102883
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.10.2023
First appeal filed on : Not On record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Please supply me the total amount in respect of pay and allowances of this applicant calculating from 06 11 2014 to 30 09 2023 claimed as railway employee (Ref: 3 of Estt. Srl. No. 129/92) including his promotion, if any, and HRA wef. Dec' 17 along with 8% interest per annum since 06 11 2014.
It is pertinent to mention here that your applicant is supposed to be continuing in the railway service as claimed on the basis of following grounds:-
I. Your office concerned i,e SSE/10/KGPW purposely refused and returned the letter of resignation dated 07 11 2014 addressing Dy. CME(P)/KGPW, duly sent by registered post (through proper channel), at the time of tendering the same by the postal Authority on 08 11 2014, only to avoid the acceptance of the said letter of resignation since the Authority concerned was aware of contents of the same.
II. That's why the then Dy CME(P)/KGPW had to take the decision on the advance copy of the original letter of resignation as would be evident from the letter dated 11/11/2014, sent by speed post, received on 12/11/2014, without having the said original letter of resignation.
III. There is no such provision in the IREM/IREC or any other Railway Rules to take any decision on the basis of only the advance copy of the original representation in absence of the later.
IV. When an addressee refuses to accept a registered post, it is presumed due service and knowledge of the contents of the letter can always be Imputed on the addressee.Page 2 of 16
V. Since you (herein Dy. CME/P/KGPW) have/had no original letter of resignation whatever you have taken a decision on the advance copy of the original letter is nothing and baseless.
VI. Moreover, the then Dy. CME(P)/KGPW namely Mr. SK HAZRA stated in his letter dated 22/11/2014 (scanned copy enclosed herewith) that prayer for resignation dated 07 11 2014 and 11 11 2014 from service is not coming under the purview of stipulation as laid down in Para 302 of IREM if an offence has been committed for which the penalty is dismissal or removal from service.
VII. The then Disciplinary Authority namely Mr. Samsul Alam has failed to impose the above penalty on the article of unbecoming of a Railway servant issued on 01 11 2014, received on 03 12 2014 by your applicant, as sent by registered post from the O/o Dy CME P KGPW on 29 11 2014. It appears that Charge sheet though dated 01/11/2014 but the same was prepared after receiving the petitioner's letter of resignation dated 07 11 2014 with a view to regret the same so as to showing the pendency of said case resulting of which the authority had to send the same by registered post on 29/11/2014 after 4 weeks from the date of issue of said charges. Had the charges been prepared actually dated 01/11/2014 the Disciplinary Authority ought to have service the said charges upon your petitioner then and there as because the petitioner was very much present since he was on duty at the relevant of time but it was not done even no reason had been shown as to undue delay of service of said Charge-sheet on 29/11 2014 instead of 01/11/2014. Although there is no such provision in the IREM to declare that an employee has committed an offence which is unbecoming of a railway servant.
VIII. There is no such provision in the IREM which empowers the Railway Authority to regret the letter of resignation of a Railway servant on the ground of a criminal case relating to family matters.
IX.So, letter of resignation dated 07 11 2014 is treated as already been accepted by Dy.CME(P)KGPW on the basis of foregoing points as discussed.
X. Accordingly, there is no question of treating an unauthorised absence from duties against your applicant after acceptance of said letter of resignation.Page 3 of 16
XI. So, the issuance of charge sheet (major) dated 02 06 2015 arising out of charge sheet (minor) dated 10 02 2015 on the ground of unauthorised absence from duties by the then Disciplinary Authority namely Mr. Samsul Alam did not stand at all although the reply of the charge sheet was refused and returned by your office concerned (scanned copy enclosed herewith).
XII. In spite of accepting the letter of resignation dated 07 11 2014 the Authority concerned did not mention the date of effecting the same.
XIII. A resignation letter should not be accepted from a retrospective effect (Ref: Master Circular No. 21/2019).
2. Please inform me the basic pay of this applicant in each year since 2014 till date taking with the increment 3% (as per CPC) every year including his promotion, if any, although his colleagues have already been promoted.
3. Please state me the total amount of pay and allowances in each financial year since 2015 till date in compliance with item no. 1."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.10.2023 stating as under:
"In terms of OM No. 1/4/2009-IR dtd. 05.10.2009 of Government Of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 'A citizen has a right to seek such information from a public authority which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control. This right includes inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.' However, the information sought for by you is furnished below:Page 4 of 16
Question 1 No information sought for under RTI Act-2005 Question 2 Does not arise.
Question 3 Does not arise."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(2) CIC/SERLK/C/2024/106601 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 16.02.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.02.2024 Information sought:
5. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Most respectfully, I beg to inform before your goodself to supply the proper and complete information in terms of following queries as per the provision of RTI Act.
1. Please supply the copies of the following Rules:-
a. Rule 20 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 b. Section I of Chapter XXIV of IREC Vol. II (1973 Edition) c. F(E) III/68/PN 1/25 dated 22.08.1968 d.I. E(D&A) 55 RG6-14 dated 29.02.56 II. E(D&A) 71 RG6-18 12.12.72 III. E(D&A) 93 RG6-61 11.01.2000 e. E(NG)II/70/RG/1 dated 24.06.1972
2. " In no circumstances shall the resignation of a Railway servant whose conduct is under investigation be accepted without the sanction of the authority competent to dismiss him " para 302 of IRE Code Vol. I"Page 5 of 16
Having regard to the above, please supply me a chart/list of investigation (quoting with the relevant documents) by which resignation cannot be accepted.
3. "The pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service" Rule 9 of Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993.
Having regard to the above, please inform me the meaning of "
Pensioner " quoting with the relevant documents as well as Railway Rules b. Please inform me the eligibility of Railway employee who will get the pension c. Please inform me whether all the Railway employees are pensioners or not.
d. Please inform me as to when (in particular case whether before or after retirement) the Hon'ble President of India reserves himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or gratuity or both, either in full or in part (please mention the relevant documents/rules, if any)."
6. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 16.02.2024 stating as under:
"1. a. Available in https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/codesmanual/pensi onrule/main.pdf b. Not available in this office.
c. Not available in this office.
d. I & II-Not available in this office.
https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboarduploads/directorate/establish ment/F. Dº264 DA Rules/2000/RBE%20No %205-2000.PDF e.https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/establ ishment/ENG-1/Resignation/1972.06.24.pdf
2. & 3. It reveals that neither copy of specific information nor copy of any specific document is sought for. Further, according to O.M. No. 1/4/2009-IR dtd. 5th October 2009 of Government of India. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Department of Personnel and Training, "It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public Page 6 of 16 authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve problems raised by the applicants or to furnish reply to hypothetical questions."
7. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(3) CIC/SERLK/C/2024/109151 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2024 CPIO replied on : 12.03.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15.03.2024 Information sought:
9. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Please inform me as to the nature of action taken by the Hon'ble Chief Works Manager, Kharagpur Workshop, S. E. Railway with regard to the representation dated 22-03-20221 filed by this petitioner before the C. W. M./KGPW (copy enclosed).
2. That in partial modification of Board's letter dated 09-05-2023 of Rule 65(1) of Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993, it has also been decided by the Board that out of the past cases in which the Disciplinary Authority had not passed any specific orders for or against of compassionate allowance, if any case appear to be deserving for consideration being given, may be reviewed by authority concerned on receipt of representation of dismissed/removed employees.
Further, the Disciplinary Authority has no right to forfeit the pensionary benefit of any railway employee at the time of disciplinary proceedings since there is no specific provision in Railway Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 in this regard wherein Hon'ble President of India Page 7 of 16 reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or gratuity or both, either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period.
In spite of that Ld. Disciplinary Authority, being a Group 'B' Officer of august organization of Indian Railways, namely Mr. Samsul Alam forfeited the pensionary benefit of your petitioner fully sitting on the chair of the Hon'ble President wherein there is no dishonesty or any grave-misconduct allegations found in the charge sheet dated 02-06- 2015.
Furthermore, Ld. Disciplinary Authority granted the "Compassionate Allowance" at the time of passing the order of removal from service on 13-09-2016 whimsically by forfeiting 100% pension and gratuity of your petitioner as per Rule 65 of Railway Services Pension Rules (without receiving any request from your petitioner in respect of considering the same as per Board's Letter No. 164/2008) which is nothing but violation of principle of Rule 65 of Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 since your applicant has not retired on compensation pension.
Since removal from service leads to forfeiture of past service, the qualifying service of such an employee becomes nil. In the circumstances, the pension and gratuity which depends on the qualifying service also becomes nil (Ref: Rule 40 of Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993).
Having regard to above, please inform me the reason for which the Appellate Authority, O/o Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer Production failed to consider the matter as to why Compassionate Allowance" has been granted by the Ld. D. A. in favour of your applicant at the time of passing the order of removal from service without receiving any request from the later in accordance with the Railway Board's Letter No. RBE 164/2008.
3. Please inform me as to how Ld. D. A. reviewed the matter in respect of granting the Compassionate Allowance without receiving any request from your petitioner before passing the order of removal from service vide his letter dated 13-09-2016.
b. I further request you please inform me as to whether the Ld. D. A violated the Railway Board's Letter No. 164/2008 or not."
10.The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 12.03.2024 stating as under:
Page 8 of 16"1. No such application is available in the office of the CWM/KGPW.
2. & 3. In terms of proviso of rule 65 of Railway Service Pension Rules'1993, the authority competent to dismiss or remove a Railway servant from Service may, if the case is deserving or special consideration, sanction Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two third of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. This is the discretionary powers vested in the authority competent to dismiss or remove a Railway Servant, to be exercised by that authority suo-motu, at the time of passing orders of dismissal or removal from service or immediately thereafter in terms of RBE No. 164/2008 (Copy enclosed)."
11.Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
(4) CIC/SECRL/C/2024/132601 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2024 CPIO replied on : 13.09.2024 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.10.2024 Information sought:
13. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Mostly respectfully, I beg to inform before your goodself to supply the proper information in terms of following queries as per the provision of RTI Act.
1. Since there is no such chart/list available in respect of any kind of allegations which have been brought in the Charge Memorandum against an employee for which "Compassionate Allowance" has been sanctioned/granted on special consideration.
Ref: Rly. Board's Letter No. MORLY/R/P/23/01319/1 Page 9 of 16 In this regard, you being a Appellate Authority of my case please inform me the particular ground by which learned Disciplinary Authority Mr. Samsul Alam in the capacity of Works Manager/Kharagpur Workshop granted compassionate allowance in accordance with Rule 65 of RS(Pension), 1993 vide punishment notice dated 13/09/2016 from the Office of the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer Production/Kharagpur Workshop (although your petitioner had not retired on compensation pension under Rule 63 of Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993).
2. Please inform me this compassionate allowance is the right to property of the employee or not since the pension is the Constitutional right to property of the employee as per the Article 300-A.
3. Please inform me this compassionate allowance is within the ambit of the pension or not.
4. Please inform me how long this compassionate allowance will be disbursed to your applicant and when this compassionate allowance will be closed."
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.09.2024 stating as under:
"1. In terms of proviso of rule 65 of Railway Service Pension Rules 1993, the authority competent to dismiss or remove a Railway servant from Service may, if the case is deserving or special consideration, sanction Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two third of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension.
This is the discretionary powers vested in the authority competent to dismiss or remove a Railway Servant, to be exercised by that authority suo-motu, at the time of passing orders of dismissal or removal from service or immediately thereafter in terms of RBE No. 164/2008 (Copy enclosed)
2. to 4. Information in respect of item No. 2, 3 & 4 transferred to WPO/KGPW u/s 6(3) of RTI Act for providing necessary information vide this office letter No. SER/M-KGPW/Dy.CME(P)/Estt./RTI/740/04 Dated Page 10 of 16 12.09.2024 since the said information pertains to WPO/KGPW. (Photo copy enclosed)."
15.The CPIO, South Eastern Railway, Office of the Workshop Personnel Officer Kharagpur Workshop, P.O. Kharagpur, Pin-721301, Distt. Paschim Medinipur, W.B furnished a reply in point No. 2 to 4 to the complainant on 26.09.2024 stating as under:
"2. to 4. You have not sought for any material information under section 2(f) of RTI Act' 2005.
As per DOPT NO. 1/4/2009-IR dated. 05.10.2009, Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training. Para 10 -
"..........The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants: or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
16. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
17. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
18. The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Avishek Kumar, Dy. CME (P)/CPIO along with Shri Jaydip Sengupta, Workshop Personnel Officer present through video conference.
19. The Commission remarked at the outset that 13 Complaint/Appeals cases of the same complainant/appellant are listed today for hearing. Upon discussion on each case one by one, the Commission advised the Complainant to confining his arguments on the points of RTI application and not digress into a subject or dimension of grievance which is beyond the mandate of the Commission. The Complainant failed to express his substantial/reasonable grounds for filing Complaint before the Commission, he insisted on ventilating Page 11 of 16 his grievance and when advised again to restrict to the point to RTI application, he left the NIC studio mid-session. However, since considerable time has already been elapsed in listing of these matters, the Bench finds it just and reasonable to decide the instant Complaints on merits.
20. The Respondent while reiterating the contents of their initial replies stated that point-wise timely response against each RTI application has already been provided to the Complainant. There is no intent to without the information.
21. The Commission also noted that proof of having served a copy of his Complaints on the Respondent has not been uploaded by the Complainant while filing the same before the Commission. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
Decision
22. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that instant cases are the complaints filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864.
23. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon close scrutiny of contents of RTI Application it is observed that despite queries raised by the Complainant in the RTI Applications do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he majorly sought clarifications/interpretations, yet, the Respondent made an effort to provide a reasonable reply which is in the spirit of the RTI Act.
24. Further, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Complainant to initiate any penal action against the CPIO due to the fact that timely replies have been given and the Complainant has not served a copy of the instant Complaints upon the Respondent. The Commission would like to remind the Complainant of the fact that serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is fundamental requirement for due process in legal proceedings and Page 12 of 16 crucial for fairness, transparency, and also in the interest of expeditious response from the concerned Public Authority. It further reinforces the bonafide interest of the Appellant in obtaining the information at the earliest possible. The requirement of advance service is in accordance with the audi alteram partem requirement. It further ensures that the opposite party is aware of the facts of filing of a case in CIC, arguments of the Appellant and reason for discontentment. It has been the experience that where the applicant had served advance copy of the Second Appeal/Complaint on the opposite party, the Respondent Public Authority has tried proactively to resolve the case by either providing clarity on the subject or by providing revised and updated reply/information to the Appellants before the matter reaches for the hearing. This ultimately results in faster delivery of information, thus, leading to a more efficient and effective Appeal disposal. It also reduces the time, energy and efforts of the Commission and Respondent Public Authority in early disposal. It is in his own interest for the Appellant/Complainant to serve copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on the Respondents.
25. No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"...61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
26. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matters.
27. Be that as it may, the Commission from perusal of records observes that more than 90 cases of the same Complainant against same and related Public Page 13 of 16 Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. In addition, 13 number of Second Appeals/Complaints are also listed for today's hearing. The Complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information repeatedly. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
28. It appears that the Complainant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter- productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates Page 14 of 16 frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
29.Therefore, the Commission counsels the Complainant not to file repetitive similar RTI Applications which is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under -
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
30. Hence, the Complainant is advised to make sensible use of his Right to Information in future.
The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 15 of 16 Copy To:
The FAA South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Workshop, Kharagpur - 721301 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Workshop Personnel Officer, Kharagpur Workshop, PO - Kharagpur, Distt - Pashchim Medinipur - 721301 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer (Production), South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Workshop, Kharagpur - 721301 Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)