Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Kumar vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 8 February, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NRALF/A/2022/605676-UM
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Senior Divisional Material Manager,
Northern Railway,
Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,
Firozpur Division, Firozpur (Punjab)-152001.
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2023
Date of Decision : 07.02.2023
Date of RTI application 29.12.2021
CPIO's response 13.01.2022
Date of the First Appeal 14.01.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 21.01.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.01.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 01point, as under:-
The CPIO, Northern Railway, vide letter dated 13.01.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant.Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 21.01.2022furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar attended the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Yoginder Kumar Tyagi, Sr. DME, attended the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought copies of his APAR for last 3 years etc. He submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. While deposing in the hearing, he stated that the Department wilfully and deliberately misled and hid information. He said the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving misinformation. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have furnished a suitable reply as per record available in their office. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 25.01.2023 which is taken on record.
DECISION:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by both the parties and perusal of records, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a precise revised reply to the Appellant, along with the copies of Appellant's APAR, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.
The Commission further advises the Respondent public authority to look into the grievance of the Appellant in accordance with the extant guidelines, if necessary by calling the Appellant to their Office at a mutually convenient date and time to resolve the above said issue in a time bound manner, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 07.02.2023