Central Information Commission
Mohiuddin Salahuddin Kazi vs Central Railway on 24 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125
Mohiuddin Salahuddin Kazi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
C.P.I.O,
CENTRAL RAILWAY
O/o the General Manager,
Vigilance Branch,
CSMT, Mumbai - 400 001 .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24-03-2026
Date of Decision : 24-03-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20-04-2024
CPIO replied on : 24-05-2024
First appeal filed on : 24-05-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08-08-2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20-04-2024 seeking the following information:
"Request you to provide me the copy of Service Register, 2. Appointment letter as "Electric Signal Maintainance" "B", in S&T department through CPO (HQ); General Manager dt. 21/03/79; and subsequently decategorized as Sr. Clerk in personnel and dismissed on 02/01/2001 in Grade Rs. 4500-7000.
The case is going on in CGIT (labour court). As per General Manager (C.R.) No. 2021/G/130/V/RTI, 36/PN.con dt. 15/03/2001 (placed below); case resulted in Major Penalty; vigilance; the period of retention is 10 years AFTER Closure.CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125 Page 1 of 6
The case is not closed; and still underway in Labour Court (CGIT). So, kindly supply the above mentioned documents; under RTI Act. 2005, section 6(3)."
2. The PIO vide its letter dated 24.05.2024 had given reply to the Appellant, which states as under:
"With reference to the above, you were appointed on 21/01/1979 and dismissed on 02/01/2001. This office cannot provide copies of your Service Register and Appointment Letter, as they are beyond the preservation period"
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24-05-2024. The F.A.A 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 through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Malik, APO & APIO present through Video- Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 08.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that he has sought specific information related to his own service records, but the Respondent wrongly stated that the same was not available in their records. The Appellant referred to a Record Retention Policy attached along with a letter dated 15.03.2021, which clearly states that the period of retention of cases which resulted into major penalty (GOs and NGOs) is 10 years after closure. He contended that then as to how the Respondent Public Authority weeded out his records when a case before Labour Court was pending. He stated that next date of hearing before Labour Court is 22.04.2026.
CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125 Page 2 of 67. Written submissions dated 20.03.2026 of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"It is humbly submitted that the Appellant filed Online Initial RTI application dated 20.04.2024 (Annexure-A) seeking copy of his Service Register and Appointment Letter.
Sr. DPO/PIO vide letter dated 24/05/2024 has provided reply to the Appellant informing that he has been dismissed from Railway service on 02.01.2001 and this office cannot provide copies of Service Register and Appointment Letter as they are beyond the preservation period. (Annexure-B) The information provided to the applicant was based strictly on the records available in the concerned office at the time of disposal of the application. There was no intention to conceal any information or to mislead the applicant. The reply was issued after due verification of the relevant records.
Subsequently, as mentioned by the applicant, the First Appeal was filed by the applicant, on date 24/05/2024 (Annexure-C), however the appeal has not been received by this office.
After examining the copy of the first appeal and the second appeal provided by your good office, it is humbly submitted that the reply to his initial RTI was provided on date 24/05/24 wherein the applicant was informed that the applicant was dismissed in the year 2001 and at this distant date his Service Register and Appointment Letter is not available as they are beyond the preservation period as per HQ's Letter No HPB/R/Misc dated: 03.12.2009. (Annexure - D).
Accordingly, the reply already provided in the RTI Application stands valid and holds good. The information sought was addressed as per available official records."
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 24.05.2024, complete factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant. The Respondent, during the hearing, referred to a letter dated 03.12.2009 wherein the Record CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125 Page 3 of 6 Retention Policy for preservation of Service Records (SR) Gorup B & Ors is 5 years after cessation.
9. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that the information regarding Court case was maintained by their Court Section.
Decision:
10. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the available records, observes that the core issue for determination was not merely non-supply of information, but the apparent non-availability of crucial service records of the Appellant, namely the Service Register and Appointment Letter.
11. The Commission notes that a Service Register is a foundational and vital document pertaining to the entire service career of an employee, containing entries relating to appointment, promotions, disciplinary proceedings, and cessation of service. Such records, by their very nature, assume permanent or long-term significance, particularly in cases involving disciplinary proceedings culminating in major penalty, as well as where judicial proceedings are pending.
12. The Respondent has relied upon a Record Retention Policy indicating that service records are to be preserved for a limited period after cessation of service. However, the Commission finds this submission to be insufficient and unconvincing in the present case. It is a settled principle of record management that where any matter is sub judice before a competent court of law, the records ought to be preserved till final adjudication of the case. Destruction or weeding out of such records during pendency of litigation defeats the very purpose of administration of justice and raises serious concerns regarding due diligence.
13. In the instant matter, the Appellant contended that his case was pending before the Labour Court and is yet to attain finality. In such a scenario, the plea of the Respondent that the records have been weeded out on account of expiry of the retention period does not appear tenable. The Respondent has also failed to place on record any documentary evidence to demonstrate the actual weeding out/destruction of the records in CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125 Page 4 of 6 accordance with prescribed procedure, including approval of the competent authority, weeding register entries, or destruction certificates.
14. In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the Respondent Public Authority has not satisfactorily justified the non- availability of the requested records. The possibility of improper maintenance or premature weeding out of records cannot be ruled out.
15. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Respondent to conduct a comprehensive and time-bound search of the records, including in the Personnel Branch, Record Room, and Court Section, where documents relating to pending litigation are ordinarily maintained and ascertain whether copies of the Service Register and Appointment Letter are available in any connected files, vigilance records, disciplinary proceedings files, or court case records.
16. If the information sought is still not found, then the Respondent/present PIO is directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant, free of cost deposing categorically that the information sought by the Appellant in above-mentioned RTI application is not available in their records and should also mention the efforts made by them in searching the records and explaining the reasons for absence of records. The said affidavit should reach the Commission and to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
17. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, CENTRAL RAILWAY, O/o the General Manager, Vigilance Branch, CSMT, Mumbai - 400 001 Mohiuddin Salahuddin Kazi CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/126125 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)