CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000577/3278
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000577
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Lion K.C. Naidu,
214, 5th Street, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore-641012.
Respondent : Divisional Personnel Officer & PIO,
Southern Railway,
Divisional office, Salem-636005.
RTI application filed on : 17/12/2008 PIO replied : not replied First appeal filed on : 02/02/2009 First Appellate Authority order : not replied Second Appeal received on : 25/03/2009
Particular of required information :-
1. What is the office designation of the Estate officer for Salem Division, .its
pay and Grade?
2. Who had appointed him as Estate officer copy of appointment order may be
furnished.
3. Whether any notification is made in Govt. of India Gazette it so, a copy of
the Gazette notification may be supplied.
4. Who is the senior most officer neat to DRM among various departments in
SA Division?
The PIO replied.
Not replied.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Ms. Chandrika Jaishankar, PIO
The PIO shows proof that the information has been sent on 17/03/2009 to the
appellant. The PIO states that the application was received on 20/12/2008 and she
sought the help of Mr. Chandra Mohan, Office Superintendent, General Branch,
Salem Division, Southern Railway, Salem. Mr. Chandra Mohan replied to the PIO
with the information on 06/03/2009.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Mr.
Chandra Mohan 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 for the delay at Rs. 250 per day, as mandated under Section 20 (1)
before 5 June, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15th May, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)