Central Information Commission
Baliram N Jogdankar vs Central Railway on 11 May, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CRAIL/A/2021/112297 -UM
Mr. Baliram N Jogdankar
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central railway Divisional Office,
Commercial Department Kingsway, Nagpur- 440001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.05.2022
Date of Decision : 11.05.2022
Date of RTI application 28.01.2021
CPIO's response 23.02.2021 /
10.02.2021
Date of the First Appeal 25.02.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 05.03.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.03.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:- Page 1 of 3
The CPIO-1 & Sr. DCM / NGP vide letter dated 23.02.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant, as under:-
Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF/ Nagpur vide letter dated 10.02.2021, 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 05.03.2021, upheld the reply of the Sr. DSC/NGP & Deemed PIO.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Baliram N Jogdankar, participated through AC, Respondent: Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner participated through AC.Page 2 of 3
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding the duty position, duty register, duty muster certified of Shri Mujib Khan and Lavkush Patel etc. He further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He alleged that there are irregularities in allocation of duty of the constable in the department and they are asked to do private work instead of official work by senior officers. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 23.02.2021, they had furnished a reply as per the provisions of RTI Act. He further submitted that the information regarding duty point of any member of the Para Military Force deputed on duty are their personnel information and comes under third party information. Further, he said the disclosure of the said information and identifying the source or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security in such cases would raise issues of physical safety and there is no larger public interest is involved. Therefore, the information sought is exempted under the provision of section 8 (l) (g) &
(j) of the RTI Act-2005. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said .
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 05.05.2022 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that vide letter dated 23.02.2021 an appropriate reply has been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. No further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 11.05.2022 Page 3 of 3