Respondent: It was a joint enquiry report & the facts of all charged officers were closely inter-mingled making it virtually impossible to sift out the portion of the enquiry report pertaining to the appellant - CIC agreed to the respondent’s submissions
Date of hearing : 29.06.2017
The appellant sought information on 3 points; report of vigilance inquiry conducted for a tender which was opened on 27.11.15, file notings relating to the repatriation of the appellant to the railways without issuance of any showcause notice, details of work given on quotation after 01.06.15 with amount(s). The CPIO’s reply is not on record. The appellant filed first appeal on 20.03.16. The FAA provided parawise reply on 28.03.2016. Being aggrieved he filed second appeal on 05.04.2016 before this Commission.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Appellant : Present
Respondent : PIO, Shri P.C. Bihari, JGM alonwith other officers
During the hearing the appellant submitted that he received only partial reply on 28.03.2016 from the FAA (First Appellate Authority).
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that though proper reply was provided on point no. 1 to the appellant by the respondent, the section quoted i.e. section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act by the respondent CPIO was not correct in this case.
The respondent PIO was asked whether the same information can be given after applying severability clause u/s 10 of the RTI Act, the respondent PIO submitted that it is not possible in view of the fact that it was a joint enquiry report and the facts of all charged officers were closely inter-mingled making it virtually impossible for the respondent to sift out the portion of the enquiry report pertaining to the appellant for providing the same under the RTI act to the appellant. The Commission agreed to the submission of the respondent. The report of the vigilance inquiry conducted for tender opening issue hence could not be provided to the appellant. The reply provided on point no. 2 however was not proper. A more comprehensive reply on point no. 2 of the said RTI application should be provided. The appellant submitted during the hearing that he had received the requisite reply on point no. 3 and was satisfied with the same.
The respondent CPIO is directed to provide complete information on point no. 2 i.e. the latest position of the case in the form of certified true copies of file notings relating to the repatriation of the appellant to the parent organisation i.e. railways complete in all respects as available on record free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 07 days of the 3 receipt of the order. For this purpose, CPIO/PIO, may take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Citation: Jawed Ahmed v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. in File No : CIC/AB/A/2016/000874-AB