Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Tamal Sanyal vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 9 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/MORLY/A/2024/107577

Tamal Sanyal                                     .....अपीलकता/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


CPIO,
Ministry of Railways, Railway
Protection Force Rail Bhawan,
4th Floor, New Delhi-110001                      .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    07.07.2025
Date of Decision                    :    08.07.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    27.06.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    04.08.2023
First appeal filed on               :    17.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order   :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    08.03.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 27.06.2023 seeking the following information:

"I may kindly be provide the following information:

(i) List of all such RPF personnel who have been transferred during last 10 years, upon the orders of DG, RPF and whose seniority has been retained Page 1 of 6 and ascertained from the date of transfer, (and not date of joining), where his joining at the new place of posting has been delayed due to administrative reasons, beyond his control, in case of inter-Zonal transfer. Kindly provide copies of all such transfer orders also.

(ii) Copies of DG RPF's disposal of fixation of seniority of at least two such cases, where both have been transferred Inter-Zone, one after another, but one who has been transferred earlier could join later than the other, due to administrative reasons, beyond his control."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.08.2023 stating as under:

"(i) Requested data is not maintained in desired format in Railway Board.

(ii) The information sought is not clear/specific."

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, ASC/RPF, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi present in person.

5. A written submission dated 01.07.2025 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his written submission wherein he inter alia pleaded as under:

"...2. The queries stem from a seemingly infair provision that the RPF Rules, 1987 hold. It says that any person of RPF, who seeks transfer to another Zone either "on his own accord" or "on a mutual exchange basis", will lose all his seniority and will be placed at "rank bottom" in that particular Railway Zone, i.e., below all personnel of his equivalent rank. This is akin to "re-starting his career from a scratch". I shall quote the rule :-

Rule 99.2 of RPF Rules, 1987 Transfer on own request or on mutual exchange : Seniority of an enrolled member of the Force transferred on his own request or on mutual exchange from one zonal railway to another or to the Railway Protection Special Force and vice versa shall be fixed below that of all existing confirmed and officiating enrolled member of the Force in the relevant rank of that railway or Railway Protection Special Force irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of officiating service of the transferred member of the Force.

EFFECT OF THE PROVISION Let us suppose that If an RPF personnel, who has served for say 10 years in the rank of an Inspector in some Zone, which is far from his hometown and who is awaiting promotion to the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner, which is a gazette rank, suddenly seeks a transfer to his home Zone due to some domestic emergency, either on own request or on mutual exchange and his transfer is granted/approved, he will have to "abandon and abdicate" all his hard earned seniority upon his transfer and start his career afresh at the new place of posting. And what was the purpose ? Just to fulfil his basic duty of looking after his family.

3. The RTI application sought to have information in the light of that provision, but the CPIO has, vide her reply dated 4/8/2023 replied to the first query, that requested data is not maintained with Railway Board. It is quite surprising that the CPIO has made no effort to locate the data/information. Section 4 of the RTI Act compels all departments to catalogue all data within 120 days of enactment of the Act and under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the CPIOs are bound to transfer the RTI application, within five (05) days, to such authority, which holds the requisite information. Moreover, being the headquarters of RPF, it has the privileged access to all information and it was not difficult for the CPIO to access the information and share it with the Appellant, but she chose not to comply with the legal provisions and gave a one line reply, without application of mind. Details of not even one such case was given. This shows that the information was deliberately sought to be prevented with malafide intention.

4. The reply of the CPIO to the second query that the information sought is not clear/specific is also very strange as it was written in clear language and moreover a translated version into Hindi was also provided to the CPIO.

So the question of not understanding the query is not correct.

5. The reply dated 20/10/2023 of the FAA may kindly be seen. It is clear that the FAA has not applied his mind and has not made any speaking order as to why he agrees with the order of the CPIO.

6. PRAYER In view of above, it is prayed that orders to the following effect may kindly be passed -

I) Information requested may kindly be provided immediately ; II) Compensation u/s 20(1) of RTI Act, 2005 be ordered ; III) Action u/s 20(2) of RTI Act, 2005 be considered"

6. The Respondent stated that the Appellant has sought vague and unspecific information regarding inter-zonal transfer orders of all RPF personnels without specifying the cadre and ranks that too for a time-period spanning across a decade. The records are not maintained in the consolidated form or desired format. This factual position has already been intimated to the Appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2023.

Decision:

7. The Commission based on perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the appellant with the reply provided by the respondent is bereft of merit as the query raised by the appellant in this RTI Application is unspecific and vague which do not qualify the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

8. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.

9. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)

10. Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority"

under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied)

11. And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:

"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.

Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied)

12. In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be granted in this matter.

The appeal is disposed of 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 Copy To:

The FAA Ministry of Railways, Railway Protection Force Rail Bhawan, 4th Floor, New Delhi-110001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)