CIC: The PIO should have procured the remaining letter(s) from the probable holders of information - CIC: The PIO to provide attendance record of the employees for the period mentioned therein; Information to be provided free of cost
The Appellant sought to know the difference between departmental selection 124/03 & 182/05 as per letter no P/R/14/314/ dated 27.09.2006 alongwith copy of the letter, address of the Commissioner of Employees Provident Fund Organization, name of Dy.CME(M & P)/KGPW who had signed letter no SER/KGPW/Dy(P)/Grievance/15/SP/13 dated 19.12.2015 etc.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: G.S. Gupta, DCME & CPIO, South Eastern Railway, O/o the Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer(Production), Kharagpur, present through VC. Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on paras 1, 2, 8 and 9 of the RTI Application.
On para 8, CPIO submitted that the only Railway Board’s letter No. E(D&A) 85 RG6-21 dated 30.05.1985 which was available with them has been already provided to the Appellant and other letters as mentioned by the Appellant are not available in their office but may be available with other concerned Sections. He further submitted that he will abide by the order of the Commission.
Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that no scope of intervention lies with respect to information provided on para 1 of the RTI Application as the query is outside the scope of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act. As regards, paras 2 and 9 of the RTI Application, CPIO has provided inadequate information while on para 8 CPIO should have procured the remaining letter(s) from the probable holders of information. Now, Commission directs the CPIO to provide specific information on para 2 of the RTI Application in terms of address sought therein; on para 9 of the RTI Application, attendance record of the employees for the period mentioned therein should be provided. As regards, para 8 of the RTI Application, CPIO is directed to procure the remaining letters from its concerned holder and provide to the Appellant. In the event, any or all of the remaining letters remain unavailable with the probable holder of information; CPIO will intimate the Appellant categorically. The aforesaid information should be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Citation: Shankar Poddar v. CPIO, PIO/Dy. Chief Mech, Engr. (Prod) South Eastern Railway in File No : CIC/SERLK/A/2017/188573/SD, Date of Decision: 07/01/2019