Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5913
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, Commissioner
Pradip Kumar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/638991
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Subodh Kumar, GM
RTI exemptions under S.8(1)(h) cease post-disciplinary proceedings; provide severable records after redaction.
Headnote:The appellant sought copies of enquiry reports, penalty proposals, approvals for withholding retirement benefits, and prior intimation notices under the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly Sections 2(f), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j), and 10. The CPIO denied certain information citing ongoing disciplinary proceedings and non-availability, upheld by the FAA. The Commission found partial inadequacy in responses to specific points. Key issues included whether exemptions under S.8(1)(h) and S.8(1)(j) apply post-conclusion of proceedings, obligations to provide existing records, and severability under S.10. The Commission relied on precedents emphasizing that CPIOs must supply held information without adjudicating correctness, and no duty exists to create unheld information. The Commission directed provision of certified copies for points 1 and 9 after redacting exempt personal details under S.8(1)(j), within 15 days, free of cost. Other responses were upheld as appropriate, disposing of the appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application details and cpio/faa responses (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's arguments on concluded proceedings (Para 6) |
| 3. respondent's defense of disciplinary process (Para 7) |
| 4. commission directs partial disclosure post-severability (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Copy of the Enquiry report and the proposed penalty to be awarded to me by the Disciplinary Authority, which had been mentioned by you in Charge Sheet number BNM No C-225/06.03.01(60467)/2022-23 dated 21.09.2022.
2. Copy of approval of the concerned authority showing the reason for withholding my EL encashment of Rs 30 lakh, since it has been noticed that the withhold amount of other officer in this case has been released by the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Approval of the concerned authority to withdraw my PLR amount of Rs 3,89,866/- from my salary account number ******0985 from SBI on 28.12.2020.
4. Copy of prior intimation if any given to me for withdrawal of my PLR by the concerned authority.
5. Copy of the approval to continue my leave encashment kept on hold after completing of 1st Enquiry in October 2020 and subsequently submission of 2nd Enquiry report on 11.08.2023 by Enquiry officer.
…. etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The status regarding the enquiry proceedings in respect of Charge Sheet issued vide BNM No. C- 181 / 06.03.01 (60467) / 2019-20 dated December 16, 2019 was already communicated to you vide "NOTICE" letter BNM No. C - 40 / 06.03.01(60467) / 2021-22 dated June 16, 2021.
You have acknowledged receipt of the above Notice vide email dated August 9, 2021.
It has already been communicated to you at paragraph 3 of the Notice as under;
"QUOTE
3. Now, therefore, please take notice that the earlier actions initiated / proceedings concluded by the Disciplinary Authority in the matter stands withdrawn, and a de novo common enquiry into the lapses / actual loss caused to the Company will be held. Accordingly, a modified Show-cause Notice / letter calling for explanation on the lapses pertaining to you will be issued to you.
UNQUOTE"
2. Copy of Office Order No.397 dated December 31, 2020 issued to you by Salboni Office is enclosed. It is mentioned at paragraph 3 of the Office Order that the grant / release of non-statutory retirement benefits and non-statutory gratuitous payments if any, shall be contingent upon and subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against you and the final orders of the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Please refer to reply given at SI.No.2 above.
4. Information not held.
5. Please refer to reply given at SI.No.2 above.
Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.09.2024.
5. The appellant Pradip Kumar and on behalf of the respondent Subodh Kumar, GM attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the CPIO and the FAA had failed to provide critical documents, particularly, the 2nd stage advice letter from the CVC, relevant to his case. Therefore, he prayed for disclosure of complete information. Further, he contended that there were discrepancies and unfair handling in his inquiry proceedings, including proposal of unjust major penalties after his retirement. The Appellant requested the Commission to consider his latest written submissions, which are taken on record and are extracted below:
“…The Respondent's written submission dated 12.12.2025 contains a clear and unequivocal admission that the enquiry proceedings had already concluded much prior to the RTI denial d
