Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mahesh Prasad Agrawal vs Northern Railway on 28 January, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                      के न्द्रीयसच
                                                 ू नाआयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                                    बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NRAIL/A/2020/123733 -UM

Mr. Mahesh Prasad Agrawal
                                                                      ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                         VERSUS
                                           बनाम
CPIO,
Northern Railway Zonal Rail Manager
Lucknow 226001
                                                                  ....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing     :             21.01.2022
Date of Decision    :             25.01.2022

Date of RTI application                                               28.02.2020
CPIO's response                                                       Not on record
Date of the First Appeal                                              11.05.2020
First Appellate Authority's response                                  Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                  19.08.2020

                                        ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the information.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: The appellant was not present despite notice. Respondent: The respondent Dr. Lovely Gyan, APO, Northern Railway attended the hearing.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further stated that the appellant is habitually asking the same information repeatedly through different applications and his RTIs mainly contain demand of same information like Copy of SR, Copy of Medical Memo, Copy of promotion order Copy of Top sheet and settlement papers, etc. Further, the respondent informed that the Copy of SR and all other records are provided multiple times to the appellant. She also informed that the Medical memo was not available on SR. Hence, an Affidavit was furnished to him on points related to Medical Memo. Further, the File of promotion got destroyed due to termite, and the Affidavit of the same was also furnished to him. Moreover, the respondent also informed that the appellant was dismissed from service and so no settlement papers were submitted except the top sheet for PF withdrawal, and a copy of the same was also given to him multiple times.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply as per the RTI Act, 2005 had already been furnished by the Respondent and hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(UdayMahurkar) (उदयमाहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू नाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 25.01.2022 Page 3 of 3