##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा /Second Appeal No. CIC/ESICO/A/2025/652054 Gitesh Kumar ….अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Employees State Insurance Corporation Kolkata ... ঋितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 09/09/2026 Date of Decision : 09/09/2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

RTI application filed on 26/08/2025 CPIO replied on 25/09/2025 First appeal filed on 25/09/2025 FAA’s order dated 24/10/2025 Second Appeal dated 13/11/2025 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26/08/2025 before the CPIO, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Kolkata seeking the following information:

“I GITESH KUMAR (Primary affected party), seek the following information under Sec 6(1) of the RTI Act,2005,reg. the departmental inquiry conducted against me based on a complaint filed by Dr. Pal on 14.10.2019 and concluded on18.05.2022. Requested Information:

1. Dr. Pal, in his complain, alleged that one of his private nursing home staff members gave me Rs. 2000-3000/-in ATM.. Please provide the full name, designation, and identity of this staff member as recorded any part of the inquiry proceedings.

2. Was any statement of the said staff member ever recorded during the departmental inquiry? If yes, please provide a certified copy of the statement. If not, state clearly why no statement of such an important alleged witness was recorded.

3. Dr. Pal later claimed during the final hearing (16.2.22 to 18.2.22) had expired prior to 23/10/2019. Was any death certificate or official confirmation submitted or obtained to support this claim? If yes, provide a copy. If not, provide reasons or file noting justifying the acceptance of this claim without proof.

4. Was any effort made to identify, contact, or verify the existence of the alleged staff member from the nursing home? Was the name Shambhu Nath Chaterjee (as mentioned in Complaint/withdrawal letter/preliminary inquiry dated 23.10.2019) officially recorded or investigated? Was his statement taken? If yes, provide copy. If not, provide reason for not recording the statement of person who was: Allegedly present during the transaction, Mentioned in the complaint, withdrawal letter, preliminary inquiry and even final hearing.

5. If Mr. Shambhu Nath Chatterjee was reported as deceased, was any death certificate or official communication provided or obtained from the nursing home? If yes, provide a copy. If not, provide reasons for not verifying such a key witness.

6. On what basis did the inquiry continue when: The complaint was withdraw within 48 hours, and the main witness (alleged bribe giver) was neither verified nor examined…?”

2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 25/09/2025 stated as under:

“1. The information sought by the applicant is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The information sought by the applicant is not specific.

3. The information sought by the applicant is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. The query asked is in the form of an advice/opinion and therefore does not fall within the domain of the RTI Act, 2005 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (CA No. 6454/2011) which ruled: "...A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide advice' or opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant."...”

3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority order dated

24/10/2025 stated as under:

“1. Shri Gitesh Kumar, vide his