Southern Railway told to disclose list of employees with disabilities, amid concerns about fake diability certificates

CIC advises Southern Railway to disclose list of employees with disabilities to prevent fraudulent practices in recruitment.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the Thiruvananthapuram division of Southern Railway to disclose the list of employees who have secured jobs under the category for people with disabilities, amid concerns about fake disability certificates.

The CIC ruling came in response to a Right to Information petition filed by M. Aravind who sought the names of such employees, along with certified copies of their disability certificates, expressing concerns about fraudulent practices in the recruitment process.

In his order, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari mentioned the recent case of an All India Service officer who was dismissed from service, in an apparent reference to IAS probationer Puja Khedkar, who allegedly submitted false certificates to gain benefits meant for people with benchmark disabilities, and those from other backward classes, in order to clear the civil services exam. She has denied the allegations.

In the light of such incidents, Mr. Tiwari emphasised the need to publicly disclose the information requested, to ensure transparency and probity.

Initially, Southern Railway’s Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) had refused to release the requested information, citing concerns about privacy and the lack of larger public interest. The CPIO argued that sharing personal details of employees could lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Mr. Aravind contended that many candidates had joined the Railways through fraudulent means, including the submission of fake disability certificates. He expressed frustration that the Railways was unwilling to even share the number of employees with disabilities. He referred to a previous CIC order, which stated that “the copy of a document reflecting the disability and its extent, issued by an appropriate authority, cannot be withheld on the grounds of personal information.”

After considering the arguments from both sides, Mr. Tiwari concluded that no malafide intent had been established on the part of the CPIO. The CIC’s role, he explained, was limited to determining whether the information had been denied due to unreasonable causes or with malafide intentions. Based on the facts and the CPIO’s submissions, the Commission found that an appropriate and timely response had been provided.