Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001628
Dated January 29, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Gajendra Singh
Name of the Public Authority : NWR HQ, Jaipur
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.19.1.09 with the PIO, NW Railway HQ, Jaipur
requesting for information against 5 points including details of enquiry proceedings,
details of committee members and chairperson with regard to sexual harassment case
filed by his wife. Shri Rajeev Singh, PIO replied on 16.2.09 requesting the Applicant to
deposit Rs.12/- towards photocopying of 6 pages of information. Not satisfied with the
reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.17.3.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that
information provided has not been linked with the information sought and that it is not
certified and also that information is incomplete. He also wanted to know why the
enquiry was conducted in Jaipur instead at Jodhpur. Shri Naresh Malhan, Appellate
Authority replied on 13.4.09 once again asking the Applicant to deposit Rs.12/-
towards photocopying charges and also stating that only information which is available
on record can be provided. He suggested that the Applicant get in touch with Jodhpur
Division for the information he requires . Being aggrieved with the reply, applicant
filed a second appeal dt.8.6.09 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for January 29, 2010.
3. Shri Rajeev Singh, PIO and Shri M.K.Sharma, APIO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was heard through audio conferencing.
Decision
5. Shri Rajeev Singh submitted that the Applicant paid Rs.12/- on 20.7.09 and was
provided with the information , With regard to the Appellant’s query about why he
had been asked to contact Jodhpur division when the enquiry was conducted at
Jaipur, Shri Rajeev Singh submitted that the matter was looked into at the HQ and
then all the papers related to the enquiry were returned to Jodhpur and this position
was intimated to the Appellant on 13.4.09. He further stated that in compliance with
CIC Decision in appeal No.CIC/OP/A/2009/000318 dt.29.12.09 , after receiving a list
of missing information from the Appellant, all the information has already been
provided to the Appellant. The Appellant who was heard through audio conferencing,
however submitted that he had not received the information against points 4 and 5.
Shri Rajeev Singh informed him that the information against these points was sent by
speed post a day before the hearing and that the Appellant would received the
information soon. He also invited the Appellant to contact him personally if he
requires any further clarification.
6. After hearing the submissions made by both sides, the Commission holds that
complete information as available on records has been provided to the Appellant.
7. The Commission, however, directs the PIO to show cause as to why a penalty of
Rs.250/- per day (Maximum Rs.25000) should not be levied on him for not providing
the information within the stipulated time period and for not transferred the
application to the Jodhpur Division instead of asking the Appellant to contact that
office. The PIO to submit his written response to the Commission by 28.2.10.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Gajendra Singh
R/o 18-A, Karni Bagh
Opp. High Court Colony
Jodhpur 342 011
2. The PIO
North Western Railway
Headquarter Office
Hasanpura Road
Jaipur
3. The Appellate Authority
North Western Railway
Headquarter Office
Hasanpura Road
Jaipur
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC
