के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2024/648119 Bimalendu Samaddar .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, South Eastern Railway, Vigilance Branch-HQ, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700043 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Decision : 24.06.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 23.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 23.08.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.08.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 20.09.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.10.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 23.07.2024 seeking the following information:

“My review appeal of dated 20/12/2023 was rejected by the reviewing authority which is communicated by PCPO/ER vide letter no. SP 272/D&A/BS, Dated: 18/07/2024 by attaching the RB order no. E(O)I-

2024/AE-3/ER/09, Dated: 08/07/2024 (copy enclosed).

In the above stated order it is categorically mentioned that appropriate punitive action has been taken against three co-accused Railway officials i.e. S/Shri B.K.. Sinha, the then Sr. DEE(OP/CKP, P. Sridhar, AEE(OP)/CKP and P.K. Soren, the then OS/Tender under the RS(D&A) Rules.

Now I sought for the following information in this regard under RTI Act

2005.

Q1. Please state whether anyone served major penalty or NOT.

Q2. Please furnish the name(s) if the reply of Q1 is YES.

Q3. Please state what type of punishment awarded on major penalty if the reply of Q1 is YES.

Q4. Please state whether anyone served minor penalty or NOT.

Q5. Please furnish the name(s) if the reply of Q4 is YES.

Q6. Please state what type of punishment awarded on minor penalty if the reply of Q4 is YES.

Q7. Please state whether anyone of these 3 was included in the AGREED/SECRET LIST or NOT.

Q8. Please furnish all the issuing dates of major penalties, minor penalties, punishment imposing if the replies of Q1, Q3, Q4 & Q6 are YES. Q9. Please furnish the inclusion year of AGREED/SECRET LIST if the reply of Q7 is YES.

Q10. Please state what type of punitive actions had been taken against these 3 personals other than punishment of major & minor penalty and inclusion in AGREED/SECRET LIST, if all (Q1 to Q9) the replies are NO.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.08.2024 stating as under:

“1. As regards complaint/grievances pertaining to SDGM it is stated that Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 states "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks. contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other low for the time being in force. Hence, the said information cannot be provided as the petitioner's right exceeds the proviso of section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 which envisage that if on applicant attempts to elicit answer to questions with prefixes such as why, what, when, which, whether, then the same is liable to be denied.

Ref: (1) Dr. D.V. Rao vs APIO & Deputy Secretary (A) vs Deptt of Legal Affairs, New Delhi CIC File No CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21st April, 2006 Ref: (2) Decision dated 03.04.2008 of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Commission in WP No.419 of 2007 of the High Court, Bombay DoPT's O.M.No.1/7/2009-IR dated 20-05-2011.

Ref: (3) Decision dated 29.12.2017 of Mr. Om Prakash -VS- CPIO & Manager (CRM), LIC of India, CRM Department, Muzaffarpur, vide no Appeal no. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/183922-BJ.

Moreover, according to IRVM 2018 Para 828.1(c) Delhi High Court's decision in LPA No.618/2012 dated 06.11.12 in the matter of disclosure of information under the provision of RTI Act, relating to disciplinary cases has observed that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disc