के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/ MORLY/A/2025/658344 Rajesh Khanna .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi – 110 001 ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date of Decision : 08.01.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 11.11.2024 CPIO replied on : 06.12.2024 First appeal filed on : 09.12.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 19.12.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.12.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“1. Ground/Evidence for Transaction Dated 10.03.2017: kindly furnishes the grounds and/or evidence that substantiates the occurrence of the transaction dated 10.03.2017 as referred to in the letter.

2. Complete Noting of the File: I request a copy of the complete noting on the file pertaining to the above-referenced letter.

3. Investigation Report: Please provide a copy of the report of the investigation conducted in connection with the aforementioned letter.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.12.2024 stating as under:

“Point 1: It is mentioned in letter no. 2019/VC/RB/23-PIDR dated 21.09.2020 that the said transaction took place on 10.03.2017 in the main hall of State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan Branch at 10:29 a.m. and that the same is based on stills from video clip of the incident (copy of the letter has already been provided to you in another RTI).

Point 2 and 3: The information sought is a part of Vigilance file and contains information regarding names of the officials who investigated the complaint, information collected from different sources in confidence for investigation and comments of administrative authorities thereon. The disclosure of this confidential information would endanger the life & physical safety of the officers concerned. Hence, information sought for is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act,2005. Further, the CIC, in their judgment No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, have also held that the details of vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounts to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005.This was again upheld by CIC in its decision No.

CIC/AD/A/2012/003366/VS/06272 dated 24.02.2014.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2024. The FAA disposed of First Appeal vide order dated 19.12.2024.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:- Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Roy Choudhury, Joint Director Vigilance (Intelligence) and Shri Madan Gopal Bharti, Deputy Director/Vigilance Confidential present in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC dated 31.12.2024 is not available on record.

Respondent confirms non-service.

6. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application along with the instant appeal. The Appellant submitted that he has sought specific information related to his case and stated that the same has been wrongly denied to him by the Respondent.

7. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

“5. In his appeal petition, the Appellant has taken plea that the CPIO's response is incomplete and the appellant seeks "official correspondence or requests made to the SBI bank to obtain the video clip", "any consent or authorization letters from the bank allowing access to their video footage", "kindly provide doc