Central Information Commission
Mrnijamuddin vs Ministry Of Railways on 8 February, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, NEW DELHI110 066
TEL: 01126717355
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001655
Appellant: Shri Nijamuddin,
12BN/RPSF,
Thakurli (E), Distt. Thane,
Maharashtra.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer91,
DIG/RPSF, Ministry of Railway, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi110001.
Date of Hearing: 08.02.2016
Date of Decision: 08.02.2016
O R D E R
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.1.2014 seeking information regarding total number of employees with designation posted in the Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF), list of employees who were transferred with less than 5 years through administrative action or their own request, list of employees who were not transferred in spite of their promotion for the last 5 years, list of employees who were transferred on promotion, but were posted on the same place for the last 5 years etc. The CPIO responded on 19.2.2014. Dissatisfied with the reply, the appellant filed an appeal dated 8.3.2014 with the first appellate authority(FAA). The response of FAA is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.4.2014 with the Commission. Hearing:
2. Both the parties participated in the hearing personally.
3. The appellant stated that a number of employees have been posted at a place on their choice for more than 3 decades, whereas he had remained posted in North East India for long years. The appellant said that in this background, he has been seeking information, regarding the total number of employees with designation posted at one place battalion wise, list of employees (battalionwise) who were transferred with less than 5 years through administrative action or their own request, list of employees who have not transferred in spite of their promotion for the last 5 years and also intimate the reason for not transferring them to another place, list of employees who were transferred on promotion, but were attached on the same place for the last 5 years., and after posting at one place for a long time, the circumstances and rules under which RPSF employee can be transferred on their own request. The appellant stated that no information has been provided to him.
4. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous and third party information, therefore they did not provide the information to the appellant. Discussion/Observations
5. Information related to total staff strength of the RPSF and transfer policy should be provided to the appellant.
6. The first appellate authority did not perform his duties as prescribed in the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order information as per para 5 above.
8. The first appellate authority may be advised by the public authority to exercise caution in future and discharge his responsibilities as per the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy ( Prakash ) Deputy Registrar