Central Information Commission
Tapash Mandal vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 22 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2024/622832
Tapash Mandal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the senior
Divisional Personnel
Officer South Eastern Railway
Adra Division, Adra 723121 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2026
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 26.04.2024
First appeal filed on : 26.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 29-05-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Please furnish the following information under RTI Act-2005:
1. The Outgoing Priority List of own request transfer cases of Ministerial cadre of Personnel Department of Adra Division along with the priority position and their present status.
2. Total numbers of employees are waiting for incoming into the Ministerial cadre of Personnel Department of Adra Division.Page 1 of 6
3. Daily progress made on my own request transfer application No. OR00512254 dated 24/11/2023.
4. Names and designations of all the officials with whom my application was lying during this period. And what action has been taken by that official during that period.
5. According to rules and regulation or Charter of Commitment or any other order, in how many days such a matter should be dealt with. Please provide a copy of these rules.
6. Present vacancy position of Ministerial cadre of Personnel Department of Adra Division."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.04.2024 stating as under:
Srl.No Information provide 1 1. Sri Sandip Kumar, OS/Personnel-Awaiting NOC from SPJ/Division/ECR.
2. Sri Khemraj Meena, Sr. Clerk/Personnel- Awairing NOC from Jaipur Division/NWR.
3.Sri Rajesh Kumar, OS/Personnel Case was put up to C.A and the same had been rejected by DRM.
4. Sri Tapas Mandal, OS/Personnel Case file was put up to C.A and the same had been rejected by DRM.
5. Sri Sunil Kr. Yadav, Jr clerk/Personnel- Case file has been put up to C.A for approval.
6. Sri Chandan Baran Das, Sr. Clerk/Personnel- Case is under process.
2 Offer of Appointments of 08 nos. of Jr. Clerk-cum-Typist have been sent on 11.03.2024 but till date no one has reported. 03 nos. of incoming IROT cases are under process as per priority. 3 Case has already been rejected by DRM, so question about daily progress of the case does not arise.
4 Question does not arise as the case has already been rejected by DRM.
5 When approval received from C.A. Accordingly many n/action is taken.
Page 2 of 66 Present vacancy position of Ministerial cadre of Personnel Department of Adra Division is as follows:
Category Sanction On Roll Vacancy Ch. OS 36 33 03 OS 101 76 25 Sr. Clerk 24 11 13 Jr. Clerk 00 26 26
3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2024. The FAA order is on 29-05-2024 stating as under:
Srl. Information as sought Information provided No. for 1 Information as requested Reply to question or by the applicant was not clarification /justification replied within 30 days of does not come under the the receiving of purview of RTI Act 2005 application 2 For the query No.1, 2, Reply as Srl.No.1 4&5 of the RTI application (Registration No.SERLY/R/E/24/00752) incomplete information is provided. The information provided is not proper and satisfactory.3 For query No.1, priority Reply as Srl.No.1
position of Sri Chandan Baran Das Sr.Clerk/Personnel is shown as 6. But present status is showing as-
'Under Process' clear
status should be
provided, whether it has
been approved by CA or
not, whether the case
has been forwarded to
Page 3 of 6
other division or not etc.
4 For query No.3&4. All Reply to question or
progress and action clarification/justification
taken from the date of does not come under the
application up to the purview of RTI Act 2005
date of rejection is not
provided.
5 Rules should be Question does not arise
provided. If there is no regarding rules and such rules or regulations charter of commitments.
or charter of
commitment it should be
clearly mentioned.
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: Shri Soumya Kanti Mal, APO & authorized representative of the PIO present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 29.05.2024 is not available on record.
Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
8. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information. The Commission observes that the PIO has given complete point-wise Page 4 of 6 reply/information to the Appellant vide their letter dated 26.04.2024 i.e. within stipulated period under the RTI Act.
9. It is an admitted fact that the PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The PIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the Public Authority.
10. The Commission further observes that the Appellant, in his First Appeal as well as the Second Appeal, is disputing the veracity of the information furnished by the PIO. Such a challenge amounts to a grievance redressal issue, which falls outside the scope and mandate of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
11. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr.
v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
12. The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
13. While the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
Page 5 of 6"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply given and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
15. The Appellant has not raised any specific ground in his Second Appeal regarding deficiency in information provided. Furthermore, he is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
16. No 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 011-26107040 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South Eastern Railway Adra Division, Adra 723121 Shri Tapash Mandal Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)