Central Information Commission
Pardeep Kumar vs Northern Railway on 9 July, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRAIL/A/2017/178265
Pardeep Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Railways, Northern ... ितवादी/Respondent
Railway, Ambala.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30-03-2017 FA : 30-05-2017 SA: 21-11-2017
CPIO : 25-04-2017 FAO : 13-07-2017 Hearing: 08-07-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Northern Railway, Ambala seeking information as follows:-
A. "Kindly furnish the certified copy of that interim reply which you had allegedly sent to the applicant on 15.07.2014. B. Kindly furnish the certified copy of dispatch book entries vide which, the above mentioned interim reply dated 15.07.2014, was allegedly sent to the applicant.
C. Kindly furnish the certified copy of charge sheet served on the STE/ Chandigarh namely, Shri Mukesh Solanki, as per your letter No. Comml-/RTI/3/2014 dated 14.02.2014.
D. Kindly furnish the certified copy of that document vide which, disciplinary action has been taken against the STE/Chandigarh namely, Shri Mukesh Solanki, as per the letter No. 2-CT/970/DAK/2013 dated 30.01.2014 of your DRM/Comml./UMB.Page 1 of 5
E. Kindly furnish the certified copy of that document vide which, you have allegedly penalized your concerned employee for the loss of applicant's letter during transit.
F. Which letter of the applicant was allegedly lost during the transit? G. Kindly inform the name and the then designation of that employee who allegedly lost the applicant's letter during transit. H. By which mode the applicant's concerned letter was being transmitted? I. From which office and place to which office and place the applicant's letter was being allegedly transmitted, and for which purpose? J. Whether any other document or letter was also lost during the transit along-with the applicant's letter? If yes, then kindly furnish the Diary and Dispatch particulars and other details of all those lost documents during the transit.
K. Whether any complaint regarding the loss of documents/letters during transit, including the applicant's concerned letter, was lodged with the Police? If yes, then kindly furnish the certified copy of that complaint so lodged with the police, and the certified copy of FIR or DDR registered by the Police on that complaint.
L. If no complaint was lodged with the Police regarding the loss of documents /letters during transit, then kindly inform as to why the complaint was not lodged with the Police? Kindly also inform the name and the then designation of that concerned officer who was required to get the complaint lodged with the police regarding the loss of documents/letters, including the applicant's concerned letter, during transit.
M. Whether this address i.e. "Chief Comml. Manager/Refunds, IInd Floor, Station Building, New Delhi" was the correct and complete address, as informed to the applicant by Mr. Amar Pal Singh. If that address was not correct, then kindly inform the correct and complete address and phone number of that officer who can refund the amount of penalty of Rupees 265/- which the Northern Railway has admitted to have been wrongly charged from the applicant by its delinquent STE/Chandigarh namely, Mukesh Solanki, vide EFT No. 988702.
N. What is the complete address and phone number of that officer who can grant compensation/damages to the extent of Rupees one lakh or more, to the applicant, because of the reasons as given in the letter dated 08.04.2014, the receipt of which has been acknowledged by you in dated 13.08.2014?"
2. The CPIO responded on 25-04-2017. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 30-05-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 13-07- 2017. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before Page 2 of 5 the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. Mr. Piyush Mitttal, Advocate attended the hearing on behalf of the appellant through video conferencing. Mr. Amar Pal Singh, DCM participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The representative of the appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the information on point nos. C, D, E and N of the RTI application. Further, he stated that the copy of the chargesheet of Shri Mukesh Solanki should be provided to him as the action was taken against him based on the appellant's complaint.
5. The respondent stated that copy of the chargeheet and documents pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against Shri Mukesh Solanki is a matter between employer and employee and hence, this information cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of exemption available u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as no larger public interest is involved in the matter. In this regard, they have already furnished a reply with reference to the RTI application as available in their records to the appellant vide their letter dated 25.04.2017. However, they agreed to provide the outcome of the enquiry report pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against Shri Mukesh Solanki to the appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision:
6. This Commission observed that no larger public interest is involved in the matter and hence, copy of the chargesheet/documents pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against Shri Mukesh Solanki cannot be shared with the appellant, as it is a matter between employer and employee covered by the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an Page 3 of 5 organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest."
7. However, the respondent is directed to provide the outcome of the enquiry report pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against Shri Mukesh Solanki to the appellant, as agreed to in para 5 above, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Further, this Commission observed that on point no. N, the respondent has already indicated that there is no power to grant compensation of Rs. 100000/- in such case and hence, the appellant cannot seek clarification of the relating rules from the concerned CPIO.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 08-07-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/o. Railways, APIO & ACM,
Northern Railway, DRM's Office,
Commercial Deptt., Ambala Divn.,
Ambala, Haryana.
2. Mr. Pardeep Kumar (Advocate)
Page 5 of 5