In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001721
Date of Hearing : September 30, 2011
Date of Decision : September 30, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri J.P.Tiwari
H.No.16/791
Santoshi Ma Marg
Madhinath
Bareilly 243 001
Uttar Pradesh
The Applicant was present at NIC Studio, Bareilly.
Respondents
North Eastern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager's Office
Izzat Nagar
Bareilly
Represented by : Shri Ram Singh, PIO & Sr.DMM
Shri D.K.Srivastava, APO
NIC Studio, Bareilly
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001721
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.26.4.11 with the PIO, DRM Office, North Eastern Railway,
Bareilly seeking information against six points regarding implementation of the promotion order
No.1132 dt.21/08/2009 of Sr.ALP issued to Shri S.K.Tiwari, ALP/BC. The PIO replied on 24.5.11
furnishing point wise information. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.7.6.11 with the Appellate Authority
commenting on the information provided against points 2(b)(ii), 4, 4(a) and 5. The Appellate Authority
replied on 4.7.11 providing further clarification. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a
second appeal dt.11.7.11 before CIC seeking the following information:
i) Attested copies of incumbency list regarding seniority of LP(Shunting) Sr.ALP & ALP on
26.4.11, 10.2.10 and 21.8.09 respectively should be provided, and accordingly information in
s.No.3(b)(ii), 4(b)(ii) and 5(b)(ii) should be provided.
ii) Either of information in 5(b)(i) or 5(b)(ii) as the case may be should be provided
iii) Attested copies of disciplinary departmental rule applicable to case of 2(b)(ii), 3(b)(ii) and
4(b)(i) should be provided. Penal provision of section 20(i) and 20(2) should be imposed for
deliberately providing wrong webaddress for misguiding the Applicant
iv) Grounds including names of employees in first and second promotion list should be
disclosed.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Commission reviewed the relief sought by the Appellant in his second appeal
and decided as given below:
Point 1
The Commission holds that this is a new information not sought in the RTI Application and advises
the Appellant to file another RTI Application seeking this information.
Point 2
With regard to point 5(b)(i), the Respondents submitted that there is no order available in the records
which allows the competent authority to transfer an employee randomly at his discretion, without any
reasons. Names of officials responsible for not keeping n mind the appropriate seniority in
transferring employees on administrative grounds are also not on record.
The PIO to inform this fact formally in writing to the Appellant.
Point 3
The Commission advises the Appellant either to download the pages from the correct website
address given by the PIO or alternately to obtain the documents from the Respondents on payment
of Rs.2/ per page, which may b paid in advance .
Point 4
The Commission directs the PIO to provide information against this query.
The information should reach the Appellant by 30.10.11 and the Appellant is directed to submit a
compliance report to the Commission by 6.11.11.
3. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri J.P.Tiwari
H.No.16/791
Santoshi Ma Marg
Madhinath
Bareilly 243 001
Uttar Pradesh
2. The Public Information Officer
North Eastern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Izzat Nagar
Bareilly
3. The Appellate Authority
North Eastern Railway
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office
Izzat Nagar
Bareilly
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 the Commission’s decision, and (3) 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.