Central Information Commission
CIC/OK/A/2008/00986-AD
Dated June 19, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr.V.Rajagopal
Name of the Public Authority : Southern Railway, Chennai
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.2.08 with the CPIO, SR, Chennai.
He requested for information against 4 points including the following:
1)One copy of the Vigilance Manual of SR in the following subject is required :
Railway Vigilance trap cases – procedure & guidelines in carrying out decoy
checks
2a)Whether in a surprise check done by the Railway Vigilance officials in
connection with bribery cases in which railway staff involved without the
presence of S.P.E is legally valid. If it is valid, to mention the validity of such
cases in court of law.
2b) Details of joining, parent department, Educational Qualifications, Places
of working, etc. of a list of employees given by him.
3) whether in a surprise check done by the Railway Vigilance officials in
connection with bribery cases in which railway staff involved without the
presence of S.P.E. is legally valid. If it is valid, please mention the validity of
such cases in court of law.
4) whether in a surprise check done by the Railway Vigilance officials in
connection with bribery cases in which railway staff involved, the independent
witnesses drafted from Railway (or) other than Railway departments. Please
furnish the details.
The APIO replied on 14.3.08 furnishing point wise information and stating
that there is no Vigilance Manual of Southern Railway. The Vigilance Manual
published by Railway Board is available on the official website of Indian
Railways. He directed the applicant to refer to Para 307 of the Vigilance
Manual, a copy of which was also enclosed. He also added that information
sought does not fall u/s 2(f) of RTIA-2005 and it is in the nature of seeking
non-existing opinions of the Public Authority for which there is no provision
under RTIA-2005.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.28.4.08 with the
Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority replied on 29.5.08 providing
clarification. However, still aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a
second appeal dt.9.6.08 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for June 19, 2009.
3. Mr. A.P. Mishra, AGM, Ms. Sunita Vedantam, CPO, Ms. K. Bhuvaneshwari, Dy.
CVO and Mr. B. Nageswara Rao represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. On perusal of the information, the Commission observed that information
against points 1,2(a) and 2(b) and 4 has been provided to the Appellant.
With regard to point 3, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the
information by 15th July,2009.
6. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr.V.Rajagopal
1494, Kamaraj Street
Suramangalam
Salem 636 005
2. The CPIO
Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai 600 003
3. The Appellate Authority
Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Personnel Branch
Chennai 600 003
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC