Central Information Commission
*****
No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000202
Dated: May 7, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri R. Shanmugam
Name of the Public Authority : Southern Railway, Vigilance Branch,
Chennai.
Background:
1. Shri R. Shanmugam from Salem filed an RTI application on 29.08.2009 and sought
certified copies of the documents including report of Vigilance Inspection based on
complaint of Shri C.M. Ramesh against Shri R. Shanmugam; letters/statements of Shri
Kannan, Shri Narayanan, Shri P. Krishnamurthy, Shri L. Murali; dates and offices in
which No Claims certificate were furnished by Shri C.M. Ramesh, Water Supply
Contractor, Bommidi; extract of petty repair book; extract of the TA Journals of Shri
Janarthanan, etc. The PIO vide his letter dated 22.9.2009 denied the information against
point 1 under section 8(1)(h) stating that the DAR proceedings are yet to be completed,
citing CIC decision No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01508 dated 17.6.2008 and on point 10 the PIO
stated that the same information was sought by the Applicant which was denied by the
Department and the CIC vide its decision CIC/OK/A/2009/000116AD dated 19.6.2009.
The Appellant filed his First Appeal on 5/10/2009. Aggrieved with the decision of the FAA,
Shri R. Shanmugam preferred his second appeal before the Commission on 27.11.2009
stating that a copy of investigation report containing information of the alleged test check
has been furnished, but he had requested for the Enquiry report of Vigilance Inspection
based on complaint of Shri C.M. Ramesh. He also stated that Extract of T.A. Journals of
Shri Janarthanan have not been furnished to him.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter through
video conferencing on May 7, 2010.
3. Shri. A. Bhuvneshwari, PIO Vigilance, and Shri. C. M. Ramesh, Vigilance Inspector,
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the time of hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had sought a copy of the Enquiry report. The
enquiry report however is same as the Vigilance report which has already been furnished to the
Appellant on 29.1.10. As for the T.A. Journals of Vigilance Journals this case had already been
decided by the Commission in case no. CIC/OK/A/2008/01231AD on 19.06.2009 The
Commission directs that the 3 missing pages from the information of 56 pages provided by the
PIO, may be provided to the Appellant after the Appellant visits the office and inspect the file and
identifies the missing pages.
6. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri. R. Shanmugam,
Section Engineer/Works,
Divisional Office,
Southern Railway, Suramanagalam, Salem,
Tamil Nadu, 636005
2. The PIO
Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office,
Vigilance Branch,
Chennai 600003
3. The Appellate Authority
Southern Railway,
Headquarters Office,
Vigilance Branch,
Chennai 600003
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC