When it was enquired as to why the transfer of RTI application was effected after a period of more than three months of receipt of the said RTI application, the PIO could not give a satisfactory reply - CIC issued a strict warning for such late transfer
Date of hearing : 15.05.2017
The appellant sought details relating to the journey of Train No. 2557 dated 07.09.2009, name of the driver and the guard etc.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : PIO, Shri Rupesh Kumar, DOM(Muzaffarpur) PIO, Shri Ajay Jha (Delhi)
During the hearing the respondent PIO, Delhi submitted that the said RTI application was transferred on 28.01.16 to the CPIO, East Central Railway, Lucknow. When it was enquired as to why this transfer was effected after a period of more than three months of the receipt of the said RTI application when the rule about the transfer is that it should be done within 5 days of the receipt of the RTI application, the respondent PIO who attended the hearing could not give a satisfactory reply to the Commission.
The then respondent CPIO is issued strict warning for such late transfer and also for displaying such negligent attitude in dealing with the said RTI applications. In future such non application of mind may attract penal action against the respondent CPIO under the relevant provision of the RTI Act.
The appellant was not present to challenge the contention of the respondent PIO.
On perusal of the case record, it was seen that the respondent PIO in his reply had stated that records are not available. In view of this, the present respondent CPIO, East Central Railway, Lucknow is directed to state on affidavit that records are not available/destroyed with a copy of the order of the competent authority and a copy of the record retention schedule by which the records were weeded out, to the Commission with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant, within 21 days of the receipt of the order.
With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Citation: Anil Kumar v. Railway Board in File No : CIC/RK/A/2016/000400-AB