CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000807/3532
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000807
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Babu,
R, Chem & Met. Supdt.II,
Materials Technology Centre,
Loco Works, Perambur, South Railway,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai-600 023(T.N)
Respondent : Mr. P.Balan
Public Information Officer,
Loco Works, Perambur,
Southern Railway
Ayanavaram, Chennai-23
RTI application filed on : 21.10.2008
PIO replied : 08.11.2008
First Appeal filed on : 06.12.2008
First Appellate Authority reply : 06.01.2009
Second Appeal received on : 20.04.2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought for information regarding flowing:
Appellant’s name has figured in the integrated seniority list of Chemical and
Metallurgical Superintendents for promotion to group “B’ services where comparative
merit is the criterion for selection. In this connection, information has been asked
on”Individual grading in my(appellant) ACR in the last three years, i.e 2005-06,
2006-07 and 2007-08”.
The reply of PIO:
Communicating the grading of ACRs to Railway employees is not permitted except in
the case of ‘adverse entries’. Hence your request for providing the individual grading
of your ACRs for the last three years is not agreed to. You are permitted to peruse
your ACRs for which necessary fees will be charged under Section 4 (d) of RTI
(Regulation of fee and cost ) Rules, 2005. Information has been provided by appellate
authority.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
It is up to Railway Board to implement the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It is seen that the verdict of Supreme Court is of the year 2002. So far there is no order
received from Railway Board based on the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence
I agree with Dy. CPO & PIO not to provide the individual grading of ACRs for the
last three years of Shri Ramesh Babu.R, however you have given an opportunity to
peruse your ACRs is kept open.
I direct Dy. CPO to address CPO, S. Rly and get clarified about the communication of
entire grading of ACRs to employees as stated by the appellant on the basis of the
verdict of Hon’ble Supreme court.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mr. P.Balan, PIO
The PIO has refused to give a copy of the ACR to the appellant. It appears that PIO
has no knowledge or understanding of the RTI act. Any denial of the information
under RTI has to based only on Section 8(1) and the PIO has given no reasons Under
Section 8(1) for denying the information. The order of the first appellate authority is
also without any basis of the law and is quashed.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the appellant before 15 June 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO Mr. P.Balan is guilty
of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It
appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 June, 2009. He will also
submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
2 June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(Ran)