Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000273
Dated May 21, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Saidur Rahman
Name of the Public Authority : Northern Railway, New Delhi
Background
1. RTI application was filed on 13.8.09 with the PIO Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi
seeking various information related to the Vigilance Section of Northern Railway including the names
of the Vigilance Offices to whom the corruption cases had been given for enquiry, the progress
report in respect of the cases and various documents in connection with the cases. The PIO replied
on 18.9.09 providing him pointwise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed his
first appeal commenting on the information given on 5.10.09 and stating that the same is not relevant.
The First Appellate Authority replied on 16.11.09 upholding the decision of the PIO and also
enclosing the comments of the Vigilance Department. Being aggrieved with this reply, the appellant
filed his second appeal on 4.1.10 seeking the information once again.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on May 21,
2010.
3. The Public Authority was represented by Shri Jayant Kumar, Dy. CVO and Shri Navin Kumar
Parsuramka, DGM(L)
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Appellant submitted that he had furnished the Vigilance Department with a number of
documents as evidence in respect of the complaint he had made to the Vigilance Section. However, even
after these documents were made available and his statements could be verified, the outcome of the Vigilance
report indicated that there was nothing irregular taking place in the Department. He added that the vigilance
section had made no attempts to look into the instances of corruption he had mentioned and that very officials
against whom he had complained were asked to furnish their comments on the basis of which the outcome of
the enquiry indicated that the complaints could not be substantiated. The Respondent from the Vigilance
section clarified that that comments were sought from Sr.DME (O&M) whose did not figure in the complaints
but the Sr. DME had passed on the complaints further down for comments from concerned officers.
6. After hearing both the sides, the Commission perused the reply furnished by the Sr. DME (O&M) and
is of the opinion that the enquiry process does not seem to be satisfactory since it has only sought comments
from the very officials against whom the Appellant had complained. Hence, in the interest of justice and to
uphold the spirit of the RTI Act, with the powers vested on the undersigned u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act, the PIO
Vigilance is directed to conduct an impartial enquiry into the complaints lodged by the Appellant following a
rigorous process and to provide the correct information to the Appellant to the Appellant by 15th July, 2010.
The Appellant may also be allowed to inspect his personal file and be provided with attested copies of
documents he requires, free of cost.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Saidur Rahman,
Running Shed Colony,
LD14A, Tedhi ulia,
Alambagh,
Lucknow.
2. The Public Information Officer,
Northern Railway,
Office of the General Manager,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority,
Northern Railway,
Office of the General Manager,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC