Central Information Commission
Mrp Subbiah vs Ministry Of Railways on 14 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/VS/A/2014/000825/BJ
Appellant : Mr. P. Subbiah
12/2, Ganga Street, Rajaji Nagar,
Villivakkam, Chennai - 600049.
Respondent : CPIO 88 & DIG/R&T,
Ministry of Railways, Railway Board,
New Delhi - 110001
Date of Hearing : 14/06/2016
Date of Decision : 14/06/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 20.11.2012
CPIO's response 03.01.2013
Date of filing the First appeal 23.01.2013
First Appellate Authority's response 08.03.2013
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 28.02.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant sought information about a railway employee working as RPF staff who had undergone emergency medical treatment in a private hospital due to the critical nature of his ailment; subsequently, on rejoining duty, he was sent for medical examination to assess his fitness for duty. He was placed on sick list from the date of the examination till the date he was declared 'MEDICALLY DECATEGORIZED'. Since, he was sent for the medical examination by the administration only, the appellant requested the following information: a. Whether the period during which he was placed under sick leave is to be treated as "DUTY"?
b. If not, under what rule the above period was treated as 'EOL'?
The CPIO stated in its reply stated that the information was related to third party, hence could not be provided without permission. However, rules as desired by the appellant in IREC and IREM were available in public domain. Moreover, hypothetical questions were not covered under the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 1 of 3The appellant filed a first appeal before the F.A.A. on 23.01.2013. The F.A.A. stated in its order that that questions like how, why, when etc cannot be asked under RTI Act, 2005.
Page 2 of 3HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Assistant Inspector General (RPF) (M:9717647392) and Mr. Sunil Chandra, Inspector (RPF)(M:8130773891);
The appellant remained absent during the hearing. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is available on the website. It was further informed that in a similar petition, the Commission had pronounced its judgment vide order no. CIC/AD/A/2013/001783 /VS/08804 dated 09/01/2015.
The appellant also remained absent to contest the respondent's submissions or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Based on the facts available on the record and submissions made by the respondent, it is evident that no interference by the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 3