Central Information Commission
Rajesh Khanna vs Northern Railway on 12 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NRAIL/A/2023/639962
Rajesh Khanna .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
APO/TC, Delhi Division,
Northern Railway, State Entry
Road, New Delhi - 110055 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024
Date of Decision : 11.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 19.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 20.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.08.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"The undersigned wishes to seek the following information, duly certified by competent authority, under the relevant provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and subsequent amendments on the following matter related to undersigned. The undersigned had applied for the post of Intelligence officer/NCB on deputation through proper channel in the month of 04th October, 2022.
1) In this regard kindly provide the complete file noting along with correspondence letters/notes were done between any Page 1 of 7 Department/organization and final action taken on my application please provide.
2) Provide the copy of reliving letters issued by Personal Branch, Delhi Division in favor of undersigned to attend the interaction/interview in NCB.
3) Kindly provide the time line of the above case.
4) Kindly provide the copy of NOC given by Branch officer, DAR clearance, Vigilance clearance and any other clearance.
5) Under which rule & policy a letter of APO/T&C Delhi division dated 01.06.2023 has refused to spare me for NCB. Provide the copy of rule & policy.
6) Any vigilance inquiry is pending against undersigned, in this regard kindly provide the complete details along with copy of SF 7."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.06.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to above, the information sought by you is not available in consolidated form and is available in various files, if you wish to seek information, you may visit this office on any working day during working hours as per RTI Act-2005."
The CPIO vide its letter dated 07.08.2023 had provided point-wise reply to the Appellant stating as under:
"With reference to your appeal referred above, reply from Para 1 to 4 as desired by you vide your RTI application dated 09.06.2023 has already been provided to you by vide this office letter of even no, dated 19.06.2023. You were asked to collect the information from this office at any working day and the same has been received by you on 30.06.2023 The information sought by you in Para no-5 of your RTI application dt. 09.06.2023 does not come under ambit of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, being in the form of hypothetical/questioners/clarification/suggestion/request.
Para no- 6 was transferred to Security cell of Commercial Branch under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 and reply of the same has been already provided to you by the concerned department"Page 2 of 7
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
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: Ms. Dyuthi Kishan, Assistant Personnel Officer, Ms. Kritika Singh, Sr. Clerk and Shri Rohtas Kumar, Chief OS present in person.
The Appellant submitted that till date complete and correct information was not provided to him by the Respondent. He stated that information on point No. 5 of the RTI application has not been provided to him by the Respondent. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Appellant submitted that inspection of records was done by him on 30.06.2023.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Detailed reply of Para 5 and Para 6 sought by the employee is provided below:
Reply of Para 5 is as under:- Application of Sh. Rajesh Khanna, CMI/G has been put up to competent authority for or the post of Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau under MHA on deputation basis.
Vigilance clearance was sought from Head Quarter Office Baroda House and on perusal of the Vigilance status received on dt. 20.03.2023 and 06.04.2023 (Copy enclosed Annexure I and II), it was noticed that the name of the said employee does not figure in the "List of employees not figuring in the current vigilance cases", but figures under "List of remaining employees". Under this list, it says that ...... Revisioning authority vide Sr.DCM's letter dated 17.03.2023 advises re-investigation of the case. DRM/DLI vide letter dated 06.04.2023 has been advised for examining and deciding the case afresh at their end. Final Status: Case sent to DLI Division for decision."
As per the notification Narcotics Control Bureau for which the employee had applied (Annexure III), vigilance clearance certificate had to be taken. Moreover, as per the CHAPTER VII VIGILANCE STATUS FOR MANAGEMENT Page 3 of 7 DECISIONS (Copy enclosed Annexure IV) of IRVM, vigilance status needs to be taken for forwarding cases of deputation.
Decision was made based on the above rule/policies.
Reply of Para 6 Letters from Vigilance/Headquarters of Sh. Rajesh Khanna dt 30.03. 3023 and 06.04.2023 received in this office is attached (Annexure 4.I and II"
The Respondent submitted that now at the stage of second appeal, they have provided revised reply to the Appellant on point No. 5 of the RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO on point No. 5 of his RTI application.
In response, the Respondent vide its letters dated 19.06.2023 and 07.08.2023 provided reply to the Appellant wherein factual position has been informed to him. However, now at the stage of second appeal, the Respondent has furnished revised reply to the Appellant on point No. 5 of the RTI application.
The Commission at the outset after scrutinizing the records finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information sought as the query raised by the Appellant on point No. 5 of the RTI application is based on conjectures which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se.
In this regard, 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, Page 4 of 7 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;.."
His attention is also 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) 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) Page 5 of 7 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) No relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA, Sr. DPO-II, Delhi Division, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi-110055 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)