Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2825
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Shankar Poddar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO Office of the Workshop Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Workshop – Respondent
CIC/SERLK/C/2024/102883 | CIC/SERLK/C/2024/106601 | CIC/SERLK/C/2024/109151 | CIC/SECRL/C/2024/132601
RTI Act limits disclosure to existing information; no direction under S.18(2) without mala fide denial; repetitive queries misuse RTI.
Headnote:First Paragraph: RTI Act, 2005, S.2(f), S.18(2); facts involve multiple complaints by a common complainant seeking salary, pension rules, resignation acceptance, and compassionate allowance details from railway authorities; court found queries sought interpretations rather than existing records, with CPIOs providing reasonable replies citing DOPT OM limiting creation/interpretation of information. Second Paragraph: Issues framed as whether information denied mala fide or unreasonably; ratio that CIC under S.18(2) cannot direct disclosure if not mala fide, supported by Supreme Court ruling in Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur emphasizing no penalty without unreasonable conduct. Last Paragraph: The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details first rti on salary post-resignation refusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. second rti seeks pension rules and interpretations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. third rti queries compassionate allowance decisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. fourth rti on compassionate allowance grounds. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. hearing notes complainant's grievance focus. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. rti limits to existing info, no s.18(2) direction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. no mala fide; no penal action justified. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. cautions against repetitive rti misuse. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
“1. Please supply me the total amount in respect of pay and allowances of this applicant calculating from 06 11 2014 to 30 09 2023 claimed as railway employee (Ref: 3 of Estt. Srl. No. 129/92) including his promotion, if any, and HRA wef. Dec' 17 along with 8% interest per annum since 06 11 2014.
It is pertinent to mention here that your applicant is supposed to be continuing in the railway service as claimed on the basis of following grounds:-
I. Your office concerned i,e SSE/10/KGPW purposely refused and returned the letter of resignation dated 07 11 2014 addressing Dy. CME(P)/KGPW, duly sent by registered post (through proper channel), at the time of tendering the same by the postal Authority on 08 11 2014, only to avoid the acceptance of the said letter of resignation since the Authority concerned was aware of contents of the same.
II. That's why the then Dy CME(P)/KGPW had to take the decision on the advance copy of the original letter of resignation as would be evident from the letter dated 11/11/2014, sent by speed post, received on 12/11/2014, without having the said original letter of resignation.
III. There is no such provision in the IREM/IREC or any other Railway Rules to take any decision on the basis of only the advance copy of the original representation in absence of the later.
IV. When an addressee refuses to accept a registered post, it is presumed due service and knowledge of the contents of the letter can always be Imputed on the addressee.
V. Since you (herein Dy. CME/P/KGPW) have/had no original letter of resignation whatever you have taken a decision on the advance copy of the original letter is nothing and baseless.
VI. Moreover, the then Dy. CME(P)/KGPW namely Mr. SK HAZRA stated in his letter dated 22/11/2014 (scanned copy enclosed herewith) that prayer for resignation dated 07 11 2014 and 11 11 2014 from service is not coming under the purview of stipulation as laid down in Para 302 of IREM if an offence has been committed for which the penalty is dismissal or removal from service.
VII. The then Disciplinary Authority namely Mr. Samsul Alam has failed to impose the above penalty on the article of unbecoming of a Railway servant issued on 01 11 2014, received on 03 12 2014 by your applicant, as sent by registered post from the O/o Dy CME P KGPW on 29 11 2014. It appears that Charge sheet though dated 01/11/2014 but the same was prepared after receiving the petitioner's letter of resignation dated 07 11 2014 with a view to regret the same so as to showing the pendency of said case resulting of which the authority had to send the same by registered post on 29/11/2014 after 4 weeks from the date of issue of said charges. Had the charges been prepared actually dated 01/11/2014 the Disciplinary Authority ought to have service the said charges upon your petitioner then and there as because the petitioner was very much present since he was on duty at the relevant of time but it was not done even no reason had been shown as to undue delay of service of said Charge-sheet on 29/11 2014 instead of 01/11/2014. Although there is no such provision in the IREM to declare that an employee has committed an offence which is unbecoming of a railway servant.
VIII. There is no such provision in the IREM which empowers the Ra
