Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anurag Sharma vs North Central Railway on 4 May, 2026

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/NCRAL/C/2024/642936

Anurag Sharma                                         ....िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Office of the Chief Medical Superintendent,
Divisional Railway Hospital,
North Central Railway,
Railway Officers Colony, Jhansi -284003                   .... ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    04-05-2026
Date of Decision                    :    04-05-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
 RTI application filed on          : 24-08-2024
 CPIO replied on                   : 27-09-2024
 First appeal filed on             : Not on record
 First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        : 29-09-2024

Information sought

:

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24-08-2024 seeking the following information:

"1. Myself (Anurag Sharma) was being under treatment in IOD from 13/04/2023 in DRH/JHS, on what medical grounds I was made fit for duty and discharged on 24/07/2024,

2. Piz provide medical finding on basis forcibly I was made fit despite having difficulty in moving and performing my duty still.

3. Dr S.S. Nayak (Sr. DMO/ Pryg.) on his opinion dated 03/01/2024 advised for light job and medical board constitution to decide his fitness, whether any board made as of now if so than give these board's recommendations.

4. Whether CMS/JHS has given his written opinion/approval after visual checking patient condition before made him fit for duty"

2. The PIO vide its letter dated 27.09.2024 had given reply to the Complainant, which states as under:

"1. मद सं. 1 म मांगी गई जानकार के स बंध म मंडल रे ल च क सालय, झॉसी म उपल ध रकाड क छाया त संल न ह ।

2. मद सं. 2 म मांगी गई जानकार के स बंध म मंडल रे ल च क सालय, झॉसी म उपल ध रकाड क छाया त संल न ह।

3. उ त मद म मांगी गई जानकार गोपनीय होने के कारण नह द जा सकती है।

4. मद सं. 4 म मांगी गई जानकार के स बंध म मंडल रे ल च क सालय, झॉसी मे उपल ध रकाड क छाया त संल न ह ।"

3. The First Appeal is not placed on record.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Not Present.

Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar, Senior Divisional Medical Officer & representative of the PIO present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 29.09.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

7. Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 27.09.2024, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Complainant. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that reply was sent to the Complainant through registered post.

Decision:

8. The Commission observes that the Complainant has primarily raised grievances relating to his medical fitness and treatment, rather than seeking specific, clearly identifiable information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Nevertheless, the Respondent has stated that a point-wise reply, along with available records, was furnished vide letter dated 27.09.2024.

9. However, the Complainant, in his Complaint, has contended that no reply was received by him. In view of the above, the Commission is of the considered opinion that, although the Respondent has claimed to have provided a reply, the same has not been duly established to have been served upon the Complainant. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to uphold the spirit of transparency under the RTI Act, the Respondent is directed to re-send the complete point-wise reply, along with all relevant enclosures, to the Complainant at his correct address. The Respondent shall ensure that the said reply is dispatched within a week from the date of receipt of this order, under due intimation to the Commission, along with proof of dispatch.

10. In the absence of any mala fide denial or deliberate obstruction of information on the part of the Respondent, no grounds for initiation of penal proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act are made out in the present case.

The complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date CIC/NCRAL/C/2024/642936 Page 3 of 4 Copy To:

The First Appellate Authority, First Appellate Authority North Central Railway, Railway Officers Colony, Jhansi -284003 Shri Anurag Sharma CIC/NCRAL/C/2024/642936 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)