केन्द्रीय सचूना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/MORLY/A/2022/661016-UM Mr. VIKASH JAISWAL
….अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o. RAILWAYS, Sr. DPO & CPIO, EASTERN RAILWAY, DRM'S
OFFICE, SEALDAH DIVISION, DRM
BUILDING, KAISER STREET,
KOLKATA, W. B.- 700014 ….प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 14.07.2023 Date of Decision : 21.07.2023
| Date of RTI application | 05-09-2022 |
| CPIO’s response | 19-09-2022 |
| Date of the First Appeal | 01-10-2022 |
| First Appellate Authority’s response | 26-10-2022 |
| Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission | NIL |
O R D E R
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:
The CPIO vide letter dated 19-09-2022, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide
Page 1 of 3
order dated 26-10-2022,upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing through AC.
Respondent: The respondent Mohd. Tariq, Senior DPO attended the hearing through
AC.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that partial, false, and misleading information was furnished to him by the CPIO. He also informed that he had lodged a complaint against Sri Anand Bardhan, SM/SDAH for sexual harassment at the workplace and as per the Prevention of sexual harassment act this should have closed by now as more than 6 months has passed but as per RTI reply received from the competent authority it is still not closed. The appellant further stated that he is not satisfied with the response given by the respondents. Further, the appellant informed that he wants to know the final date and result of his complaint because as far as he knows this has a time limit as per the POSH Act 2013 and in case this is already breached .
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. The respondent further informed that the case has been inquired by the Internal Complaints Committee which submitted its report to the authority for approval and the approval is still awaited.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission does not agree with the respondent's reply because the investigation in a case cannot be an unending
Page 2 of 3
process. Further, the Commission observes that the information sought pertains to a sensitive issue like sexual harassment in the workplace. In view of this, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant from their records or after collecting it from the department concerned, free of cost, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर)
(Information Commissioner) (सचूना आयकु्त)
Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598
द्वदनांक / Date: 21.07.2023
GS
Page 3 of 3
Comments