Central Information Commission
Lakshmamma A vs South Western Railway on 9 July, 2021
CIC/SWRLY/A/2019/130081
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/SWRLY/A/2019/130081
In the matter of:
Lakshmamma A ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Western Railway,
Divisional Office, Personnel
Branch,Mysuru, Karnataka.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 17.01.2019
CPIO replied on : 18.02.2019
First Appeal filed on : 09.03.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20.03.2019
Second Appeal Received on : 25.06.2019
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Smt. Lakshmamma, assisted by Ms. Veena participated in the hearing
upon being contacted on Appellant's telephone.
Respondent: Shri M.G. Mayaganna, CPIO and DPO, Mysuru Division
participated in the hearing upon being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/SWRLY/A/2019/130081
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 17.01.2019 seeking information as under:
The CPIO vide letter dated 18.02.2019, denied information to the Appellant u/s 11(1) of RTI Act. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.03.2019, upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. She requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.Page 2 of 5
CIC/SWRLY/A/2019/130081 The Appellant stated that she is not satisfied with the reply of the Respondent. She further stated that she married Shri N. Shivanna in 2016 and claimed that after she gave birth to a girl child, she was thrown out of her conjugal home. She furthermore stated that she was left with no other option but to file a case in the competent Court for restitution of conjugal rights. She added that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is pertaining to her estranged husband's salary slip, which has been denied under the pretext of third party.
The Respondent reiterated the reply provided by the PIO and DPO, Mysuru division vide letter dated 18.02.2019. He submitted that considering the instant matter on humanitarian ground, the salary details of Shri N. Shivanna pertaining to December 2018 and January 2019 has been provided to the Appellant along with the breakup on 16.06.2021.
The representative of the Appellant interjected to state that the information provided by the Respondent is false. Upon queried by the Commission to substantiate how the information provided by the Respondent is false, she stated that during the finalization of the Appellant's marriage with Shri N. Shivanna, it was categorically informed that Shri N. Shivanna's salary is in excess of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), whereas the information provided by the Respondent is not in synchronization with the amount quoted hereinabove.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri M.G. Mayaganna, PIO and Divisional Personnel Officer, Mysuru Division vide letter dated 16.06.2021, wherein he has stated as under:Page 3 of 5
CIC/SWRLY/A/2019/130081 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent on humanitarian grounds has provided available information to the Appellant, which is for all intents and purposes is a third party information. However, the Appellant/representative of the Appellant is contesting on the veracity of the said information, for which the Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon.Page 4 of 5
CIC/SWRLY/A/2019/130081 Hence, the Commission advises the Appellant to approach the competent forum for redressal of grievances.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 09.07.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ADRM, South Western Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Mysuru, Karnataka- 570021
2. The Central Public Information Officer, /Divisional Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Mysuru, Karnataka-570021
3. Smt. Lakshmamma A Page 5 of 5