Shankar Poddar vs Railway Board on 23 September, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shankar Poddar vs Railway Board on 23 September, 2019

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                              के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RAILB/A/2018/138444

Shankar Poddar                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, Railway                              ... ितवादी/Respondent
Board, New Delhi.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 01-02-2018           FA     : 02-04-2018          SA: 18-06-2018

CPIO : 14-08-2018          FAO : Not on Record          Hearing: 20-09-2019

                                  ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi seeking following information:-

1. "Please let me inform how a particular Railway employee can maintain his livelihood after removal from service wherein said order of removal has already been challenged before the appropriate authority and due to such pending decision of said order of removal that particular employee is unable to take compassionate allowance until the disposal of the same.

2. Please let me know the relevant provisions if any, embodied in the IREM/IREC or any other rules/sections which employees the Railway authority to take any action on the basis of an advance copy of the original application in absence of the Later.

3. Please let me inform how an application for prayer of joining after unauthorized absent from duties can be treated as documents without enclosing any kind of proper documents in connection with unauthorized absent.

Page 1 of 4

4. Please state the particular Rule empowering the Railway administration to send a memorandum of charge sheet under Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules 1968 making only allegations of unauthorized absence from duties against the incumbent without making any allegations of misconduct/misbehavior.

5. Please let me inform what are the reasons not to grant the PF Advance applying for the treatment of employee's ailing old parents.

6. Please let me inform the provision of Law/Rules which awarded how many more marks for Educational Qualification (for the post of purely Technical category under selection grade of serving employee) in a case of such employee who passed B.Sc, passed AMIE(I) and passed Chartered Engineering in comparison with ordinary graduate like B.A/B.Com etc.

7. Please let me know when an order of removal passed against a particular Railway employee and said order is still under challenged by preferring an appeal and in that event whether the status of the said Rly. employee will be considered within the service or out of service, if so, or not please quote the relevant Rly. rules, if any provided in the IREM/IREC or any other Rly. Rules."

2. The CPIO responded on 14-08-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 02-04-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information. Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Shankar Poddar attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. T. Srinivas, DE (D&A) participated in the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him complete information.

5. The respondent informed the Commission that they have already furnished the sought for information with reference to the RTI application as available in their records to the appellant vide their letter dated 14-08-2018. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.

Decision:

6. This Commission observed that the queries raised by the appellant on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 are in the nature of seeking clarification from the CPIO which is not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification to the appellant in Page 2 of 4 terms of the judgment of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., 2011 (8) SCC 497. However, whatever information could be provided to the appellant as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided to him as per the available records vide letter dated 14-08-2018. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

नीरज कु मार गु ा) Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक / Date 20-09-2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, M/O. Railways, DD(PG) & CPIO, Registration & Co-Ordination, (RTI Cell), Railway Board, Room No-5, (GF), Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.

2. Mr. Shankar Poddar Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission