Central Information Commission
Ashwin Shukla vs West Central Railway on 30 November, 2018
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मु नरका, नई द ल -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/WECRL/A/2017/136359
In the matter of:
Ashwin Shukla
...Appellant
VS
Sachin Shukla
PIO/Dy. GM,
Vigilance Branch, O/o the
General Manager, West Central Railway,
Indira Market, Jabalpur - 482001.
&
Vijay Singh Dasoondi
Deemed PIO(Vigilance)/Dy. CVO
(Engineering). Vigilance Branch,
O/o the General Manager, West Central
Railway, Indira Market, Jabalpur - 482001.
&
Subodh Vishwakarma,
Dy. CPIO
O/o the General Manager,
West Central Railway, Indira
Market, Jabalpur - 482001.
&
CPIO & Director Vigilance,
Ministry of Railway,
Railway Board, New Delhi - 110001.
...Respondents
Dates
RTI application : 20.01.2016
CPIO reply : 12.08.2016, 11.08.2016
First Appeal : 16.09.2016
FAA Order : Not on Record
Second Appeal : 30.05.2017
Date of hearing : 26.02.2018, 27.11.2018
1
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 14.02.2017 sought certified copies of closure advice issued by the Railway Board (Vigilance) subsequent to the passing of final order by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) in the DAR case against the appellant, i.e. Shri Ashwin Shukla Dy. CSTE/Tel. & Plg/WCR, copy of the vigilance investigation report which led to the initiation of the DAR action against him, copies of all correspondences between the zonal railway, the railway board and the CVC, including internal notings and other related information. The CPIO replied on 11.08.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, so he filed first appeal on 16.09.2016. The First Appellate Authority's Order (FAO), if any, is not on record. Aggrieved with the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed a second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.05.2017. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Sachin Shukla,
Deputy General Manager cum APIO,
West Central Railway
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that a case on the same subject matter was already heard by the same bench in file no. CIC/AB/A/2016/001768 dated 03.10.2017. The order passed in the above stated case is squarely applicable in the present one also.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
2 Adjunct Order : 27.11.2018
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Ranjit Kumar,
Director(Vigilance) cum CPIO,
Railway Board
Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari,
DGM cum APIO along with
Shri S.D. Patiadar, Dy.CVO, Deemed
PIO and
Shri Sachindra Pal Singh, APO
West Central Railway, Jabalpur
The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court had directed the Commission to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. It was open to the parties to raise their remaining grounds before the Commission during the hearing.
During the hearing, the deemed PIO, Shri S.D Patidar, Dy CVO/ASP brought entire relevant records for perusal of the Commission.
The appellant submitted that he was satisfied with the reply provided on point no. 1 of the abovestated RTI application.
After perusing the relevant NPs (Note Pages) of the concerned file i.e. page nos. 1 to 18 of the said file(No. WCR/V.HQ/Complt/2009011571- CVC/200901025), the Commission came to the conclusion that the documents contained in the file (both note portion as well as the correspondence portion of the said file) are partly disclosable. Hence, parawise examination of the note file was undertaken by the Commission. At the outset it was noted that the names and designation of the officers mentioned in the said file are not disclosable in this case. Hence, these names, designation and other identification marks are required to be masked u/s 10 of the RTI Act. In respect of point no. (b) of the above mentioned RTI application, it was found that NP nos. 1 to 9 are disclosable, NP nos. 10 to 14, i..e the deposition of third parties are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, part information in respect of NP no. 14 containing discussion of evidences is disclosable. NP nos. 16 to 18 are found to be disclosable. CP (Correspondence page) nos. 548 to 574 are perused and it is noted that CP nos. 537 to 545 and 549 to 574 are disclosable.
3CP nos. 546 to 548 are evidently exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, being in the nature of third party information.
In respect of para ( C ) of the said RTI application, it was noted that copies of entire CP nos. 687 to 680, 737 to 739, 740, 754,788 and 804 to 805 are to be provided to the appellant after masking the names, designations and other identification detail, if any, of the concerned third parties.
In respect of point no. ( e ) of the said RTI application, the CPIO is not required to disclose information contained in CP nos. 1,2,3 to 12, 253 to 255, 315 to 317, 418 to 422, 437, 438, 751 to 753 as these are related to third parties and are clearly exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
In respect of point no. ( f ) of the above stated RTI application, the CPIO is directed to disclose the copy of letter of the concerned MP after masking the name and address of the complainant. The copy of the complaint in no case is to be disclosed as the contents of the complaint may have the potential to reveal the identity of the complainant.
In respect of point no. (g) of the said RTI application, the complaints/representations/other correspondence(s) received by the Railway Board or the WCR regarding transfer, posting or other service matter related issues connected thereto of the three officers mentioned in the RTI application are exempted u/s 8(1)(j) as well as u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as this information, if enclosed, will have the potential to jeopardise the right to privacy as well as the physical safety of the three officers mentioned in the point (g) of the said RTI application.
It is also noted by the Commission that even copies of the complaints or other letters received by the WCR or the railway board from various VIPs and others regarding issues related to the service matters of the appellant himself are non disclosable as the disclosure may jeopardise the physical safety of the complainants guaranteed by the exemption stipulated under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
4In respect of para (d) of the above stated RTI application, after perusing the relevant CPs of file no. WCR/P. HQ/Con/Gaz/DAR/AS, the Commission noted that copies of entire CP nos. 806 to 812, 890, 918 to 932, 964 to 969, 977 to 981, 998 to 1001, 1254 to 1260, 1267 are to be provided to the appellant, after masking the names, designations and other identification detail, if any, of the concerned third parties.
The CPIO is directed to provide the requisite information as discussed above within 15 days from the receipt of the order.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order are to be sent to all the concerned parties free of cost.
अिमताभ भ टाचाय)
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अिमताभ टाचाय
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मा णत स या पत ित)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कुमार तलाप!)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
5