Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3037

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
NAYANA JENA – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Office of the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, East Coast Railway – Respondent
CIC/CFRIS/A/2024/103599

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Nayana Jena
For the Respondent: Bhawani Shankar Nath

Disclosure of inquiry reports into public servant misconduct is vital for transparency, and blanket denials under RTI must be justified with clear evidence.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) - Denial of information sought by appellant regarding inquiry report into misconduct - Respondent's claim of endangerment upheld by lower authorities - Commission ruling that complete denial unjustified; transparency demands disclosure with necessary redactions. (Paras 8-12)

(B) Public interest vs. confidentiality - Misplacement of exemptions under RTI Act and requirement for severance in cases of third-party information emphasized. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
Appellant sought details regarding an inquiry into a complaint against a public servant. Initial denial based on claims of safety and privacy. No substantial proof provided for exemptions applied.

Findings of Court:
Appellant has a legitimate interest in the outcome of the inquiry which arose from her complaint; denied report contrary to principles of transparency and natural justice.

Issues: Justification for denial under RTI Act and public interest in disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi: The inquiry report constitutes a public document regarding public servant conduct, not exempt from disclosure unless clearly justified.

Result: The Commission directs that a copy of the inquiry report be provided to the appellant with redactions where necessary.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The appellant, Nayana Jena, sought access to an inquiry report related to a departmental inquiry conducted against a public servant, Shri Mukesh Kumar, which was held in September 2022 at RCF Kapurthala (!) .
The respondent, CPIO, denied the information citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, claiming that the report contained personal information of third parties and was confidential, thus justifying a blanket denial (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that the inquiry report was a matter of public interest, linked to misconduct involving harassment, and that the information was already partially disclosed in departmental proceedings. She contended that the denial was unjustified and that the report was not exempt from disclosure (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent defended the denial, asserting that the report was confidential and contained personal information of third parties, which could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. They also stated that the report was not prepared as per the guidelines for harassment cases and that disclosure could threaten personal safety. Additionally, they mentioned that disciplinary action had already been taken based on the report and that the appellant was awaiting court proceedings (!) (!) .
The Commission reviewed the case and observed that the denial of the entire inquiry report was unjustified. It emphasized that such reports, related to departmental inquiries involving misconduct, are generally part of the public record unless specifically exempted. The Commission highlighted that even if parts of the report contain personal information, the RTI Act provides for redaction under Section 10 to protect third-party privacy while still disclosing relevant information (!) (!) (!) .
The Commission directed the respondent to disclose the inquiry report to the appellant after applying redactions to protect third-party identities and other sensitive information that could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The disclosure should be comprehensive, with specific reasons provided if any part is withheld, and to be completed within three weeks from the receipt of the order (!) (!) .
The First Appellate Authority's (FAA) order, which upheld the initial denial, was found to lack justification in light of the principles of transparency and the public interest in accountability concerning misconduct allegations. The Commission's decision emphasizes that confidentiality cannot be claimed for departmental inquiries that are part of the public record unless explicitly exempted (!) (!) .
The case underscores that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency in public administration, and blanket exemptions without specific justification are not permissible. Proper application of exemptions, including redaction under Section 10, is essential to balance privacy concerns with the public's right to information (!) .
The respondent is instructed to comply with the order within three weeks and to provide a detailed account of any redactions made, citing the relevant exemption clauses and explaining the harm that would result from full disclosure (!) .
The appeal is thus disposed of with the direction that the inquiry report be disclosed in the manner specified, reinforcing the principles of transparency, accountability, and the limited scope of exemptions under the RTI Act.

Table of Content
1. initial appeal and denial of information. (Para 2 , 3 , 5)
2. appellant's arguments against denial. (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis of transparency and exemptions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. final decision mandating disclosure with redaction. (Para 12)
5. conclusion of the case. (Para 13)

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/CFRIS/A/2024/103599 NAYANA JENA .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Office of the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar – 751017 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025 Date of Decision : 25.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 17.11.2023 First appeal filed on : 14.12.2023 First Appellate Authority’s order : 12.01.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.01.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:

“Provide the details of enquiry in connection with complaint against Sri Mukesh Kumar ASC RPF SBP by Smt. Nayana Jena office superintendent of Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner Office Sambalpur which was held on 7/8/9.09.2022 at RCF Kapurthala Room No- 105 and the statement was recorded and the final enquiry report of RCF Kapurthala, which was conducted by Sr. Security Commander Smt. Kamaljot Brar.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:

“The information sought under your application cited above is exempted and denied on the following grounds.

As per Section 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act-2005, the information disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; has been exempted from disclosure under RTI Act.

Moreover, the enquiry report contains the names and statements of other persons being involved in the enquiry process. As it contains the personal information of third party and it could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party and no larger public interest has been disclosed, the enquiry report which is confidential in nature cannot be disclosed/provided to you under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act-2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2023.

The FAA vide its order dated 12.01.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Bhawani Shankar Nath, Chief Security Commissioner/RFP, appeared through video conference.

5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that she sought information regarding an enquiry conducted in connection with a complaint against Shri Mukesh Kumar, ASC/RPF/Sambalpur, held on 07, 08, and 09 September 2022 at RCF, Kapurthala. The enquiry was conducted by Smt. Kamaljot Brar, Sr. DSC/RPF/Kapurthala. She contended that neither the PIO, nor the FAA provided information to her. She further submitted that the said inquiry report finds mentioned only in a charge-sheet served to her on 15.01.2024 and that is when she came to know of its existence.

6. Furthermore, she stated that two individuals namely Shri Utpal Bag and Shri P. Rahul, who were working as TMS at the Office of Sr.

DSC/RPF/Sambalpur and attended the said enquiry at Kapurthala, have submitted their statements during the course of a departmental enquiry conducted against her by Shri Sanjay, ASC/RPF/KUR, ECOR. These statements have been supplied to her, and in both statements, it has clearly been mentioned that Shri Mukesh Kumar, ASC/RPF/Sambalpur, frequently used vulgar and unparliamentary language against RPF officers and staff. She pleaded that information sought was arbitrarily

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3037

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, Information CommissionerNAYANA JENA – AppellantVersusCPIO, Office of the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, East Coast Railway – RespondentCIC/CFRIS/A/2024/103599

Disclosure of inquiry reports into public servant misconduct is vital for transparency, and blanket denials under RTI must be justified with clear evidence.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
NAYANA JENA – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Office of the Principal Chief Security Commissioner, East Coast Railway – Respondent
CIC/CFRIS/A/2024/103599