In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001562
Date of Hearing : September 05, 2011
Date of Decision : September 05, 2011
Parties: (Heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Ms. Sneha R. Talreja
R/o Phulwadi Plot No. 16, Dev Samaj Road,
Netaji Chowk,
Ulhasnagar 421 004
Thane
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
Represented by: Shri Kailash Narayan, PIO and Shri P.C. Sinha, Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001562
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed her RTIapplication dated 15.03.2011 with the PIO, Central Railway, Mumbai,
seeking information against 9 items (A to I) on the subject: “Complaint lodged with RPF on
15.07.2010.” The PIO, on 11.04.2011, gave pointwise reply to the Applicant which the Applicant
challenged before the Appellate Authority in 1st appeal (dated 28.04.2011) since she was not satisfied
with the same. This appeal, however, apparently was not decided by the AA. The Appellant therefore
filed the present appeal (dated 09.06.2011) before the Commission requesting that the information be
directed to be furnished to her free of cost
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant’s RTIqueries were discussed as given below:
Item A:
3. The Appellant wanted to obtain certified copies of the rules/provisions of Railway Establishment
Manual which authorize Chief OS to lodge police complaint against an employee without taking
approval of the higher authority. The Respondents informed the Commission that the Sr. DSTE/CST,
to whom this request for information was transferred by the PIO, has sent his reply to the Appellant
on 27.07.2011. They, however, clarified that they do not have Rules/provisions in their record which
the Appellant has demanded in this query. They however confirmed that as per practice the Chief
OS who is responsible for the proper functioning of the office has been lodging police complaints,
when required.
4. In the light of this submission, it is directed that the Sr. DSTE/CST shall formally communicate the
above fact (absence of Rules) to the Appellant by 5..10.11.
Items B & C:
5. This information has been given to the Appellant.
Items D to F:
6. The Respondents stated that the documents requested by the Appellant here have already been
furnished to her under a separate departmental proceeding under D&AR. The Appellant, on her part,
stated that she wants to receive these documents under the RTIAct.
I see no difficulty if the Appellant is provided with the above documents under the RTIAct as well.
The PIO is accordingly directed to furnish this information to the Appellant by 5.10.11.
Item G:
7. The Appellant enquired about the date & time of receipt of the missing Muster Roll by the
Respondents. The Respondents stated that they do not have any material information in their
records.
In view of the above, it is directed that the PIO shall formally communicate the above fact, to the
Appellant by 5.10.11.
Item H & I :
8. The PIO’s answers to these queries were to the Point. As such, no further disclosure is needed.
9. The Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
10. As regards delayed response to the Appellant by Sr. DSTE/CST, it is directed that the Sr. DSTE/CST
shall show cause as to why a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTIAct should not be imposed on
him for his failure to adhere to the time limit set under the RTIAct. Returnable by 5.10.11
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms. Sneha R. Talreja
R/o Phulwadi Plot No. 16, Dev Samaj Road,
Netaji Chowk,
Ulhasnagar 421 004
Thane
2. The Appellate Authority
Central Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager
Commercial Branch, CST,
Mumbai
3. Public Information Officer
Central Railway
Office of Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner
Railway Protection Force, CST,
Mumbai
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant
may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI
application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the
Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the
complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.