Central Information Commission
Chaman Lal vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 10 March, 2021
CIC/NRALF/C/2019/105185
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/NRALF/C/2019/105185
In the matter of:
Chaman Lal ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Senior Divisional Material Manager,
Northern Railway, O/o The DRM,
Divisional Office, Ferozepur.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 03.10.2018 FA : Not on Record Complaint : 05.02.2019
CPIO Reply: Not on
FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 04.03.2021
Record
The following were present:
Complainant: Complainant participated in the hearing through video-
conferencing from NIC Amritsar.
Respondent: Shri Vijender Kumar, APIO participated in the hearing through
video-conferencing from NIC Firozpur.
Page 1 of 4
CIC/NRALF/C/2019/105185
ORDER
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI Application dated 03.10.2018 seeking information on the following two points:
1) "Certified copy of official order of staff placed in the panel of Head T.T.E. (Grade 5000-8000) issued by SR. DPO/FZR Lt.No.757-E/83/PIA dated 03.07.2008.
2) Certified copy of promotion order of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Davinder Singh Head T.T.E. (Grade 5000-8000) and Kuljeet Singh S/o Karnail Singh Head T.T.E. as 5000-8000 Narinder Kumar S/o Yashpal issued by Sr. DPO/FZR."
Having not received any information from the Respondent, the Complainant approached the Commission vide this instant Complaint.
Grounds for Second Complaint:
The Complainant filed a Complaint u/s 18 of the Act on the ground of non-receipt of information from the Respondent. He requested the Commission to take strict action against the Respondent by imposing penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act for deliberately not having provided the information to him.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
At the outset the Commission remarked that the instant Complaint has been filed on 05.02.2019, whereas the Complainant has also filed a Second Appeal on 07.02.2019 on the same RTI Application, for which the Complainant replied in affirmative.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Complainant vide letter dated 25.02.2021, wherein he has stated that no response has been received neither from the PIO within stipulated period of 30 days. He further stated that after filing the Second Appeal, an envelope has been received from the APIO Page 2 of 4 CIC/NRALF/C/2019/105185 through speed post dated 05.03.019 in which incomplete information was provided as the reply given on point no. 2 of the RTI application is wrong. A written submission has been received by the Commission from the APIO cum Asstt. Personal Officer, N,Rly, Firozpur vide letter dated 02.03.2021, wherein he has stated that the reply has already been sent to the Complainant vide their office letter dated 26.10.2018 and a copy of the same was again provided to the Complainant on 02.03.2021.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act on 31.01.2019 (received in Commission on 05.02.2019) followed by a Second Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act filed on 05.02.2019 (received in Commission on 07.02.2019). The Commission admonishes the Complainant for having filed both the Complaint and a Second Appeal under Section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act respectively, within a span of 5 days that too on the same RTI Application. The Commission further observes that the Complainant in his Complaint has sought only action against the delinquent official of the Respondent under Section 20 whereas in the Second Appeal, he has sought only the relevant information in connection with the present RTI Application from the Respondent. In this regard, the Commission opines that the Complainant instead of approaching the Commission in both the capacities i.e., as a Complainant and as an Appellant, he could have sought both the relief in Second Appeal only, which could have served his very purpose. Notwithstanding the above, since the subject matter of the present Complaint/RTI Application has been dealt in detail vide File No. CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535, the Commission finds no reason to adjudicate separately on the present matter.Page 3 of 4
CIC/NRALF/C/2019/105185 Hence, the instant Complaint is considered as INFRUCTUOUS. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Complaint, hereby, is dismissed.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 08.03.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Northern Railway, O/o the DRM, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur Cantt, Punjab
2. The Central Public Information Officer, /Senior Divisional Material Manager, Northern Railway, O/o the DRM, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur Cantt, Punjab.
3. Shri Chaman Lal Page 4 of 4