Central Information Commission
Diwakar Udanshiv vs Central Railway on 23 April, 2025
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/2024/600391
Diwakar Udanshiv .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Assistant Personnel Officer,
DRM's Office, Central Railway,
Solapur - 413001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date of Decision : 23.04.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal: RTI application filed on : 07.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 29.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 30.11.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 15.12.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil 1. Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 07.11.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 1 of 5"Kindly provide me the details of employees who have declared medically decategorized from 01.06.2018 to till date and given alternate posting as Office Assistant/Peon after screening. The details may contain Name, Designation, Department, Medical Classification after decategorization."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.11.2023 stating as under:
"No such information can be provided to you due to administrative reasons u/s 11 of RTI Act, 2005 treated as Third Party and related to Personal information & you have not established that there is large public interest is involved."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.12.2023, held as under.
"On receipt of your appeal, remarks called for from the concern PIO on the issue raised on RTI platform. PIO has given remarks on your appeal, and on information sought under RTI act.
PIO's reply copy of the appeal having letter No SUR/P/Rect./RTI Appeal dated 13.12.2023 is enclosed for your information.
Letter dated 13.12.2023 is as under:
मांगी गई सूचनाएं Initial म द गई Appeal Kindly provide me the जानकार म द गई जानकार details of employees No such information Reply given in initial who have declared can be provided to you application is stands medically due to administrative good. decategorized from reasons u/s 11 of RTI 01.06.2018 to till date Act, 2005 treated as and given alternate Third Party and related posting as Office to Personal Assistant/Peon after information & you screening. The details have not establish that may contain Name, there is large public Designation. interest is involved. Department, Medical Classification after decategorization. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the
Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 2 of 5
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference.
Respondent: Shri Ramesh Nair, APO/APIO present through videoconference.
5. The appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the information has been wrongly denied to him by the respondent ignoring the fact that appellant was also one of the employees who was decategorized. He stated that to clarify his doubt regarding discrimination played by the organization, he sought the information which should be disclosed by the CPIO.
6. The respondent stated that information sought by the appellant relates to personal information of third-party employees' disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, information has been denied to the appellant.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was apprehending discriminatory approach adopted by the Respondent in de-categorization of appellant and not giving benefits as given to other similarly placed officers which is the genesis of this matter.
8. Here, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant has sought personal information i.e. service-related records of third-party officer which attracts applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission further notes that where the information of any officer of the same department who is similarly placed as sought by the applicant to strengthen/defend his own service matter, then bar of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not applicable in view of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023 with the following observations -
"...5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to Page 3 of 5 work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service conditions relating to NC: 2023: KHC:29928 reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order...."
9. In view of the applicability of above ratio, exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the appellant pertaining to this RTI application on a mutually decided date and time within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the appellant, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided free of cost up to 25 pages and thereafter, upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules. Information which are exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed.
FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA Additional Divisional Railway Manager, DRM's Office, Central Railway, Solapur - 413001 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)