Information whether a particular employee was promoted while facing CBI enquiry & guidelines followed by Railways regarding posting & transfer in such cases - Respondent: posting come within the prerogative of railways - CIC: no further action required
20 Apr, 2014Information whether a particular employee was promoted while facing CBI enquiry, whether a particular employee was posted in New Delhi though he was in jail, and the guidelines followed by Railways in respect of posting and transfer in such cases – Respondent: at the time of promotion vigilance clearance was required; posting in the Railways come within the prerogative of the respondent organization – CIC: no further action required
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 06.06.2012 under the RTI Act seeking information about certain promotions and postings, and guidelines followed by Railways. CPIO responded on 17.07.2012. Appellant filed first appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 06.08.2012. FAA vide order dated 31.08.2012 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 10.10.2012.
Hearing
2. Respondent participated in the hearing, and referred to the RTI application of the appellant, stating that the appellant was seeking information whether a particular employee was promoted while facing CBI enquiry, whether a particular employee was posted in New Delhi though he was in jail, and the guidelines followed by Railways in respect of posting and transfer in such cases.
3. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was not available in material form and this had been informed to the appellant on 17.07.2012 and 31.08.2012.
4. Respondent stated that at the time of promotion of officers vigilance clearance was required and if a person has vigilance clearance, then they promote the officers. Respondent stated that at the time of posting and transfer vigilance clearance was generally not required.
5. Respondent said that posting in the Railways come within the prerogative of the respondent organization and depends on the suitability of the person concerned who is eligible for the post.
6. Respondent stated that no further information was to be provided to the appellant.
7. Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
Decision
8. No further action is required in the matter at the level of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Jai BhagwanJatav v. Railway Board in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003374/VS/06277