Central Information Commission
Pankaj Sharma vs Northern Railway on 28 January, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NRAIL/C/2020/115782-UM
Mr. Pankaj Sharma
.... निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Nodal Officer (RTI Cell)
GM Office
Baroda House
Northern Railway HQ
New Delhi-110001
.... प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.01.2022
Date of Decision : 28.01.2022
Date of RTI application 23.01.2020
CPIO's response 20.02.2020
Date of the First Appeal 27.02.2020
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission 04.06.2020
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points, as under:-
Page 1 of 4The CPIO, Northern Railway, vide letter dated 20.02.2020 furnished a reply to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the Commission.Page 2 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Present through AC Respondent: Mr. Virender Kumar Bharti APO legal, Mr P S Bisht ASC RPF, Mr Ashok Kumar Deputy CCM Commercial department, Mr. R K Rastogi Divisional Engineer Estate DRM office Present through AC The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that the reply given by the Engineering department was delayed by approximately one month and the documents received were unsigned. He alleged that the Respondent also did not disclose the name of the Appellate authority. The Respondent in reply apologized for the delay and said that since the Complainant is himself an employee of Railway and is very much aware of the hierarchy and structure of the department he would know the name and designation of the Appellate authority.
The Complainant further alleged that the Commercial department malafidely denied him the information taking the plea of Section 8 (1)(j). The Respondent in reply submitted that the said information about Mr C D Pandey could not be shared under the third party clause as it was about employer-employee relationship.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the Complainant wanted the information and hence had no objection to his complaint being treated as Second appeal. Therefore the Commission directs the CPIO to reexamine the matter and furnish a cogent, correct and suitable reply to the Complainant in the form generic information after properly examining the case within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the names of the third parties.Page 3 of 4
Further the Commission cautions the Respondent Authority against such inordinate delay in replying to the RTI application in keeping with the provisions or the RTI Law and warns that such delay will invite action in future.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत एवं सत्यानित प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] निनाक ं / Date: 28.01.2022 Page 4 of 4