In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001417
Date of Hearing : June 28, 2011
Date of Decision : June 28, 2011
Parties:
Complainant
Shri Ashwani Kumar,
F178/F2, Dilshad Colony,
New Delhi 11 0 095
The Complainant was present.
Respondents
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager,
Lucknow Division,
Lucknow
Represented by: Shri Prakash, Sr. DMM and Shri S.K. Gupta, SSO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001417
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, through his RTIapplication dated 16.07.2010, filed with the PIO, Northern Railway,
New Delhi, wanted to know the action taken and the outcome report in respect of his letter dated
12.06.2010 addressed to SDGM, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. The PIO, Baroda
House, New Delhi, on 20.07.2010, transferred this application to the PIO, Lucknow office, who, on
22.07.2010, further forwarded it to the Sr. DCM for response. The Sr. DCM, on 16.08.2010, wrote
back to the PIO that his office did not hold the requested information and that the same would be
available with the office of Sr. DFM as the matter pertained to that office. Since the Applicant did not
receive the information from any of the offices of the public authority, he filed his 1 stappeal with the
Appellate Authority on 03.09.2010. This appeal too, however, yielded no result. The Complainant,
therefore, filed the present complaintpetition before the Commission on 09.10.2010
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Complainant informed the Commission that in an earlier appeal in F.No.
CIC/AD/A/2011/000204; dated 11.05.2011, the Commission had decided a similar matter, and that
the decision taken on it will apply in the present case as well. The operative portion of the said
decision reads as follows:
“2.During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that since the person against whom the complaint has
been filed has retired from service, there is no harm in providing the information. The Respondents on
the other hand submitted that though the person against whom the complaint has been filed has retired,
on enquiry it was found that several other people were involved and since the report is a single report,
the retired official’s information cannot be provided separately. He also stated that the case is
presently with the Disciplinary Authority awaiting his decision, and therefore the information
cannot be furnished u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
3. The Commission after hearing both sides denies information at this stage u/s8(1)(h) of the
RTI Act.and strongly recommends that the decision be taken by the Disciplinary Authority definitely by
30.8.11 and conveyed to the Appellant within the next 10 days.”
3. The Respondents, however, , stated that following the above recommendation of the Commission,
the Disciplinary Authority had decided the above D&AR case well before August by imposing
penalties on all 9 charged employees. The penalty levied on first 8 employees was “withholding of
future increments of Pay, next due, for a period of 6 months…” whereas the penalty levied on
remaining one employee (i.e. Shri Kausahl Kishore, Sr. Cashier, Lucknow) was “withholding of
privilege passes or privilege ticket order or both…”. They also informed the Commission that they
have communicated this fact to the Complainant recently on 21.06.2011 which the Complainant
would be receiving soon.
4. Since the purpose of the present petition has been served, this matter need not be pursued further.
5. Matter is accordingly closed at the Commission’s level.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ashwani Kumar,
F178/F2, Dilshad Colony,
New Delhi 11 0 095
2. The Public Information Officer
Northern Railway
Office of Divisional Railway Manager,
Lucknow Division,
Lucknow
4. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (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/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.