के቎ኚरीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईनिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 ्षितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NWRLY/A/2022/653206 -UM Mr.SANJEEV VIG ….अपीलकताा/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, M/o. RAILWAYS, DPO & PIO, NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RTI CELL, DRM'S OFFICE, AJMER DIVISION, AJMER, RAJASTHAN-305001 ..... ्ቚ्षतवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 12.09.2023 Date of Decision : 23.09.2023

O R D E R

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

1. Issue certified copy of written complaint by Shree Yogesh Mishra representative of awagaman rail logistics on 20.10.2020.

2. Issue certified copy of written complaint by ShreeArvind representative of innovative solution limited on 24.01.2021.

3. Which employee was on duty on 24.01.2021 in roaster of 14.00 to 22.00 who made the railway receipt of nathwara to chandia road rake, certified copy of RR.

4. Certified copy of confidential reports for year 2018 to 2021.

5. Employee transferred vide letter No. EC/839/7/1VOL-3 dated 07.06.2021 kindly issue certified order copy of concerned official who was given order of transfer on administration ground, as well as certified rule copy from which undue transfer imposed.

6. On 07.07.2021 releving orders given by concerned officer on phone, as well as ordered to transfer papers of employee kindly issued certified copy of rule from which official can issue such type of order without any reasons.

7. How many charge sheets was issued in whole service to employee kindly give certified copy.

The PIO vide letter dated 03.08.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA.The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2022, furnished a reply to the appellant.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Mr Hazari Lal Fulvari APO Present through AC The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he has sought information regarding the copy of the complaint lodged against him by one Shree Arvind. He said that on the basis of this complaint a chargesheet was issued to him and he was also transferred within the 6 months of his joining.

The Respondent said that no chargesheet was issued to the Appellant and hence no such document is available on record. The Appellant contradicted the same and added that no proper information has been furnished to him on point no 5 & 6 of the RTI Application.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to either search and furnish correct information to the Appellant on point no 2 of the RTI Application, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.

If the CPIO is not able to provide the information on point no 2 of the RTI application , he should furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability or confidentiality of the Information or quoting their record retention policy, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. In the case of the CPIO filing a wrong affidavit, the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission.

Further the commission directs the CPIO to re-