Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Robin vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 3 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/NRALF/A/2024/628946

Robin                                                    ..... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Northern Railway
O/o the Divisional Railway Manager,
Railway Station Road,
Cnatonment Area, Firozpur,
Punjab - 152 001                                         .... ितवादी/Respondent
Date of Hearing                     :    03-03-2026
Date of Decision                    :    03-03-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          : 15-05-2024
CPIO replied on                   : 13-06-2024
First appeal filed on             : 14-06-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 06-07-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        : 06-07-2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15-05-2024 seeking the following information:

"आप से ाथना ह मेरा नयुि त प का नंबर 727-E/38/2917/PIB date 12/04/2010 है क ी रो बन पु ी सुभाष कुमार मेर मे डकल प र ा अ ैल 2010 म हुई थी इसक मे डकल प र ा के वषय म जानकार दान करने क कृपा कर

1) Medical examination category

2) Fit in medical category"

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13-06-2024 stating as under:

"The information pertained to year 2010. Which is approximately 13 1/2 years old and this record is not available."

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-06-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of CPIO vide order dated 06-07-2024.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Dr. Sonam, Divisional Medical Officer & PIO present through Video-conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 06.07.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions dated 23.02.2026 of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

"(i) The RTI application dated 15.05.2024 of Sh. Robin was received in this office through online vide registration no NRFZD/R/E/24/00263 Date:-15.05.2024 and same was transferred to concerned APIO for providing reply and the RTI application disposed of by concerned APIO on 13.06.2024. Copy of action is attached.

(ii) After that applicant filed 1" Appeal on 14.06.2024 through online vide registration no. NRFZD/R/E/24/00072 and reply was given by concerned FAA/Med/FZR and disposed appeal.

Copy of action is attached.

(iii) With reference to RTI No. NRFZD/R/E/24/00263 dated 15.05.2024, filed by Shri Robin, it is submitted that only the appointment letter was enclosed with the RTI application. In the absence of the medical memo number, it was difficult to trace the relevant medical records, and therefore additional time was required.

The records have now been traced and are submitted herewith for your kind perusal and further necessary action"

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that initially factual position in the matter has been informed to the Appellant. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that now at the stage of hearing of Second Appeal, updated information has been provided to the Appellant, which was sent to him on his e-mail address on 23.02.2026.

Decision:

8. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information as per his RTI application. The Commission observes that initially the PIO has informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant.

9. The Respondent contended that now at the stage of the Second Appeal, they have placed on record a revised reply in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application, wherein complete information has now been provided to the Appellant.

10. The said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondent has shared with the Appellant on his e-mail ID.

11. The Respondent is directed to send a copy of their revised reply to the Appellant through speed-post also.

12. No further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.

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 Date CIC/NRALF/A/2024/628946 Page 3 of 4 Copy To:

The First Appellate Authority, Northern Railway O/o the Divisional Railway Manager, Railway Station Road, Cnatonment Area, Firozpur, Punjab - 152 001 Robin H. No. 41, Nanda Colony, Farkpur, Jagadhari Workshop, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana - 135 001 CIC/NRALF/A/2024/628946 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)