Central Information Commission
Praduman Kumar vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 9 October, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NRALF/A/2023/127905
Praduman Kumar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Station Road, Cantt.
Area, Firozpur - 152001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.10.2024
Date of Decision : 08.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 25.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2023 seeking the following information:
I was working in Electric Loco Shed Ludhiana as a senior section engineer. I transferred from Electric Loco Shed Ludhiana Firozpur Division to Electric Loco Shed Saharanpur Ambala Division in the month of February Page 1 of 3 2022. My service file not sent till now to Ambala Division. I want to know why my service file not sent till now.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.04.2023 stating as under:
in reference to above no information sought by you it is clarification which is not covered under RTI/Act.2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 11.05.2023, held as under.
In reference to above it is informed that your application under RTI/ACT has been examination by competent authority and it is found that the same is grievance only and not covered under RTI act-2005. Para 2-F. This is for your information please.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Mr. G P S Chauhan, APO/CPIO present through video-conference.
Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI application expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that reason for non-transfer of his service file has not been informed to him till date due to which he will be deprived of various benefits during service. He prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
A written submission dated 27.09.2024 filed by the respondent is taken on record. Respondent stated that reply has already been provided to the appellant informing him that asking for reasons/interpretation/explanation are outside Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. To a query from the Commission regarding the status of transfer of service file of the appellant, respondent answered vaguely it may perhaps be transferred to Ambala Division.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the core contention raised by the appellant in this appeal was not receipt of Page 2 of 3 information. To which, the respondent averred that the reason sought by the appellant do not conform to section 2(f) of the RTI Act, hence, reply was provided to him, accordingly.
Here, the Commission is of the opinion that blanket denial of information by the CPIO in a service related matter of its own employee strictly on technicality is against the spirit of the RTI Act. The appellant merely asked for the reasons for non-transfer of service file to Ambala Division, which is specific in nature, and he has right to know the same to defend his service matter, if need be, for his entitlement. In this regard, the CPIO is expected to have applied his mind and should have coordinated with their concerned department/officer to facilitate due assistance to the appellant in getting the requested information. However, respondent has failed to discharge his duty in this case, for which he is cautioned to exercise due diligence while dealing with the RTI matters. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide updated information to the appellant, free of charge, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This direction should be complied by the CPIO within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
Further, considering the gravity of issue flagged by the appellant, FAA is directed to place a copy of this order before the concerned Competent superior authority to investigate 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 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Station Road, Cantt.
Area, Firozpur - 152001.Page 3 of 3
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)