Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 25 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मिु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Satish Ashok Sherkhane ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Security Printing &
Minting
Corporation of India, New
Delhi
2. India Government Mint,
Kolkata, (A Unit Of
SPMCIL),
Kolkata-700053
3. Bank Note Press, (A Unit
of
SPMCIL), Dewas
4. India Government Mint,
Mumbai, (A Unit Of
SPMCIL), Mumbai
5. India Government Mint,
Hyderabad, (A Unit of
SPMCIL), Hyderabad
6. Security Printing Press, (A
Unit Of SPMCIL),
Hyderabad
7. Currency Note Press,
Nashik,
(A Unit of SPMCIL), Nashik
Page 1 of 44
8. India Security Press (Unit
of
SPMCIL), Nashik
9. India Government Mint,
Noida
(U.P.), (A Unit Of SPMCIL),
Gautam Budh Nagar, UP ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 653591 02.10.2024 30.10.2024 30.10.2024 28.11.2024 02.12.2024
2. 653348 02.10.2024 28.10.2024 17.11.2024 20.11.2024 30.11.2024
3. 643434 01.08.2024 28.08.2024 29.08.2024 27.09.2024 27.09.2024
4. 638881 27.06.2024 26.07.2024 31.07.2024 30.08.2024 31.08.2024
5. 637720 28.06.2024 22.07.2024 22.07.2024 20.08.2024 25.08.2024
6. 629005 22.05.2024 06.06.2024 06.06.2024 05.07.2024 07.07.2024
7. 644470 15.08.2024 05.09.2024 05.09.2024 04.10.2024 06.10.2024
8. 656227 02.10.2024 18.10.2024 17.11.2024 11.11.2024 17.12.2024
9. 656189 02.10.2024 30.10.2024 30.01.2024 28.11.2024 17.12.2024
10. 655372 02.10.2024 30.10.2024 04.11.2024 12.12.2024 12.12.2024
11. 651285 02.10.2024 19.10.2024 19.10.2024 16.11.2024 19.11.2024
12. 653094 02.10.2024 28.10.2024 29.10.2024 28.11.2024 28.11.2024
13. 658040 04.10.2024 21.10.2024 25.10.2024 13.11.2024 28.12.2024
14. 658129 05.10.2024 21.10.2024 26.10.2024 13.11.2024 30.12.2024
15. 658128 05.10.2024 21.10.2024 26.10.2024 13.11.2024 30.12.2024
16. 657669 03.10.2024 21.10.2024 24.10.2024 13.11.2024 26.12.2024
17. 657668 03.10.2024 21.10.2024 24.10.2024 13.11.2024 26.12.2024
18. 657366 02.10.2024 21.10.2024 23.10.2024 13.11.2024 24.12.2024
19. 657092 01.10.2024 21.10.2024 22.10.2024 13.11.2024 22.12.2024
20. 656857 30.09.2024 03.10.2024 19.10.2024 13.11.2024 20.12.2024
21. 656444 29.09.2024 03.10.2024 18.10.2024 13.11.2024 18.12.2024
22. 655888 28.09.2024 03.10.2024 17.10.2024 13.11.2024 16.12.2024
23. 655624 27.09.2024 03.10.2024 16.10.2024 13.11.2024 14.12.2024
24. 655150 26.09.2024 03.10.2024 15.10.2024 13.11.2024 12.12.2024
25. 654853 25.09.2024 03.10.2024 14.10.2024 13.11.2024 10.12.2024
Page 2 of 44
26. 24.09.2024 03.10.2024 13.10.2024 Not on 08.12.2024
654569
record
27. 654312 23.09.2024 03.10.2024 12.10.2024 13.11.2024 04.12.2024
28. 653890 14.09.2024 21.10.2024 21.10.2024 03.12.2024 03.12.2024
29. 653920 22.09.2024 03.10.2024 11.10.2024 Not on 04.12.2024
record
30. 653466 21.09.2024 03.10.2024 10.10.2024 Not on 02.12.2024
record
31. 653305 20.09.2024 03.10.2024 09.10.2024 Not on 30.11.2024
record
32. 653302 20.09.2024 03.10.2024 09.10.2024 Not on 30.11.2024
record
33. 653021 19.09.2024 03.10.2024 08.10.2024 Not on 28.11.2024
record
34. 652273 17.09.2024 03.10.2024 06.10.2024 Not on 24.11.2024
record
35. 652553 18.09.2024 03.10.2024 07.10.2024 Not on 26.11.2024
record
36. 651983 16.09.2024 03.10.2024 05.10.2024 Not on 22.11.2024
record
37. 651543 15.09.2024 03.10.2024 04.10.2024 Not on 20.11.2024
record
38. 650946 03.09.2024 03.10.2024 03.10.2024 13.11.2024 17.11.2024
39. 648909 01.09.2024 01.10.2024 01.10.2024 05.11.2024 06.11.2024
40. 644459 05.08.2024 04.09.2024 04.09.2024 03.10.2024 06.10.2024
41. 637026 10.06.2024 10.07.2024 10.07.2024 12.08.2024 20.08.2024
42. 634594 04.06.2024 05.07.2024 07.07.2024 01.08.2024 10.08.2024
43. 629967 22.05.2024 14.06.2024 14.06.2024 12.07.2024 12.07.2024
Note: The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these bear the
same factual matrix.
Date of Hearing: 18.09.2025
Date of Decision: 24.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 3 of 44
Second Appeal Nos. CIC/IGMKO/A/2024/653591 + CIC/SPMBP/A/2024/653348 + CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/643434 + CIC/IGMHY/A/2024/656227 + CIC/SPPRE/A/2024/656189 + CIC/SPMCN/A/2024/655372 + CIC/ISPNR/A/2024/651285 + CIC/IGMNO/A/2024/653094
1. The instant cases refer to RTI application(s) dated 01.08.2024 & 02.10.2024 seeking common information for each of these public authorities (PA) as under:
"Refer F.No. 41034/1/2022-Estt.(Res-I) dated 29.03.2023 duly signed by Sandeep Saxena-Deputy Secretary of MoPPG&P, DoPT, North Block, New Delhi 110001 & SPMCIL letter no. CHO(HR)/22/20/2017 dated 20.10.2023 duly signed by Siddharth Srivastava-Manager(HR).
1. In the connection, provide photocopies of the documents prepared or executed or Action taken report by (Responding PA) alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
2. With reference to point no. C(1), provide photocopies of the documents issued by (Responding PA) alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
3. With reference to point no. C(2), Provide photocopies of the documents received by (Responding PA) alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
4. With reference to point no. C(3), provide photocopies of the documents prepared or executed by (Responding PA) alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees."
Second Appeal Nos. CIC/IGMKO/A/2024/653591 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "With reference to your RTI application dated 02.10.2024, this is to inform that the requisite information sought regarding Action taken report is being provided Page 4 of 44 here as Annexure-1 (copy enclosed). All the instructions with reference to the referred letters of DoPT and SPMCIL, CHO have been complied with.
2. With reference to point no. C(1), this is to inform that the requisite information sought pertains to the personal information of the concerned employees. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure of information as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. With reference to point no. C(2), this is to inform that the requisite information sought pertains to the personal information of the concerned employees. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure of information as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
4. With reference to point no. C(3), this is to inform that the requisite information sought pertains to the personal information of the concerned employees. Hence, it is exempted from disclosure of information as per Section 8(1)(ji) of RTI Act, 2005."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMBP/A/2024/653348 1.4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The required information (by way of multiple inter linked queries) sought by you is not specific & clear. Subject information is large and voluminous which consists of different departments, within different time frame, it tantamount to diverting the meagre resources by impacting the functioning of department."
1.5. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.11.2024 observed as under: -
Page 5 of 44"On going through your appeal and the reply given by the CPIO. It is observed that the information sought is large and comprehensive. Therefore, applicant is requested to visit the unit in person for requested data and information."
1.6. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/643434 1.7. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Caste Verification is under process."
1.8. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 27.09.2024 stated as under: -
"Grounds of your instant appeal and RTI application dated 01.08.2024 have been gone through. You have sought photocopies of various documents at Point nos. (1) to (4).w.r.t. letter nos. F.No. 41034/1/2022-Estt. (Res-I) dated 29.03.2023 & CHO(HR)/22/20/2017 dated 20.10.2023 regarding Caste Verification. Vide letter dated 28.08.2024, PIO has informed the current status of caste verification that the same is under process.
The sought information is about the communication between I.G.Mint Mumbai with other Government department and consists of information pertaining to individual employees. Such information has no relationship with the applicant and falls under the expression "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest."
1.9. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.09.2024.
Page 6 of 44Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMHY/A/2024/656227 1.10. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The document F.No. 41034/1/2022-Estt. (Res-1) dated 29.03.2023 is not attached at the time of filing RTI Request. The same document may please be uploaded to process your RTI Request."
1.11. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 11.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.12. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPPRE/A/2024/656189 1.13. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The information on the Point raised in RTI application from the available records are as under:
SPP Hyderabad is in compliance with the directions issued under the SPMCIL CHO letter dated 20.10.2023 as the verification of the caste/Community certificate is verified by the issuing authority timely without fail and in compliance with DPE guidelines. Further, the disclosure of documents issued by the SPPH and the internal noting in this regard are exempt under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the disclosure of the same would lead to the breach of privacy of the individual."
1.14. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 7 of 441.15. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCN/A/2024/655372 1.16. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Reply to Point No. C(1) - It is to inform that information sought by you to provide photocopies of the documents prepared or executed or Action taken report in connection with Timely Verification of Caste / Community Certificates by CNP-Nashik. In this regard, it is to inform that no any documents is / are prepared or executed and No action is made at CNP, Nashik and are not available in official records hence, CPIO is unable to provide the same.
Reply to Point No. C(2) - With reference to point no. C(1), it is to inform that no any documents are issued by CNP, Nashik in connection with Timely Verification of Caste / Community Certificates and is not available in official records of Currency Note Press Nashik, hence, CPIO is unable to provide photocopy of the same.
Reply to Point No. C(3) With reference to point no. C(2), it is to inform that documents received by CNP, Nashik vide email dated 20/10/2023 attached therewith SPMCIL letter No. CHO(HR)/22/20/2017 dated 20-10-2023 regarding Timely Verification of Caste / Community Certificates in pursuance with DOPT OM No.41034/1/2022-Estt. (Res-I) dated 29-03-2023 (copy enclosed).
Reply to Point No. C(4) With reference to point no. C(3), it is to inform that documents prepared or executed by CNP, Nashik in connection with Timely Verification of Caste /Community Certificates is not available in official records of Currency Note Press Nashik, hence, CPIO is unable to provide photocopy of the same."
1.17. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Page 8 of 44 Appeal dated 04.11.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.18. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/ISPNR/A/2024/651285 1.19. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The information requested in RTI application regarding action taken on DoPT letter dated 29.03.2023 and subsequent SPMCIL letter dated 20.10.2023 is held between in the fiduciary relationship of employee and employer and disclosure of the same does not satisfied larger public interest, such information is exempted for disclosure under RTI Act. Therefore, the information cannot be provided as per section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act 2005."
1.20. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 16.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.21. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMNO/A/2024/653094 1.22. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"In this connection, it is informed that this unit IGM Noida is complying with the direction of DOPT/Corporate Head Office. SPMCIL Delhi for verification of Caste/Community Certificate of employee on their appointment at this unit. However, copy of letters sent to the Issuing Authority and Caste/Community Certificate of the Page 9 of 44 employees contain third-party information i.e.. "Personal Information" of the employee. Hence, same cannot be disclosed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 2005."
1.23. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.24. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/638881
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Provide photocopies of Office copy of Office Order no.
IDPC(IWM)/200/Admn./2024 dated 07.06.2024 alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
2. Provide photocopies of Approval of Competent Authority with reference to the Office Order no. I-DPC(IWM)/200/Admn./2024 dated 07.06.2024 alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
3. Provide photocopies of documents which are prepared / executed and placed before Departmental Promotion Committee by Administration Section with reference to the Office Order no. I-DPC(IWM)/200/Admn./2024 dated 07.06.2024 alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
4. Provide photocopies of documents executed for the Formation of Departmental Promotion Committee with reference to the Office Order no. IDPC(IWM)/200/Admn./2024 dated 07.06.2024 alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
5. Provide Name and designation of the Chairman of Departmental Promotion Committee with reference to the Office Order no. IDPC(IWM)/200/Admn./2024 Page 10 of 44 dated 07.06.2024 alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees..." etc. 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "The requisite information is enclosed herewith at Page nos. (1) to (5).
2. The requisite information is enclosed herewith at Page nos. (6) to (9).
3. The requisite information is enclosed herewith at Page nos. (10) to (25) after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, as per Section 10(2) a of the RTI Act 2005.
4. The requisite information is enclosed herewith at Page nos. (26).
5. Name and designation of the chairman of Departmental Promotion Committee is given in the enclosed Page no. (27)...."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 31.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. C/IGMUM/A/2024/637720
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Refer to the attached photocopies of the Dy. CLC letter no. B.55(03)/2024-SI dated 19.06.2024. The said letter was issued with reference to my letter dated 24.05.2024.
1. In the connection, provide photocopies of the documents prepared or executed by IGMM alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.Page 11 of 44
2. With reference to point no. C(1), provide photocopies of the documents issued by IGMM alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
3. With reference to point no. C(2), Provide photocopies of the documents received by IGMM alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
4. With reference to point no. C(3), provide photocopies of the documents prepared or executed by IGMM alongwith all file noting & signature of the Employees.
5. With reference to point no. C, I would like to inspect the said documents in accordance with the RTI Act 2005 through my representative. 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The requisite documents and information relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and sharing of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Therefore, the sought information is denied as per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/629005
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Provide the name of the person who was present on 13.05.2024 at CGIT-New Delhi along with Shri Shubham Gupta, with reference to CGIT notice no.
Appln.CGIT-01/2023/322/24 dated 07.05.2024.
Page 12 of 442. Refer to the attached photocopy of the complaint dated 07.03.2024 by J.G. Jagtap-Deputy Accountant, against the crime of Ajai Kumar Srivastav General Manager. In this regard, provide a photocopy of Memo no. I- 24/198/Admn./2024 dated 25.02.2024."
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "Shri Kamal Kant Jha, Senior Panel Counsel, Government of India
2. Copy of memo issued to third party are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012). In view of the above, the requested information related to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence information cannot be provided under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 05.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.07.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/644470
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Please refer to the attached scanned copy of the letter dated 07.08.2024, duly signed by Advocate Rakesh Sawant, regarding the service of Caveat No. 3525 of 2024, dated 31.07.2024, on me.
1. In this regard, provide photocopies of documents prepared, executed, issued or received by the India Government Mint, Mumbai.Page 13 of 44
2. Provide photocopies of all documents and bills related to the payment made to Advocate Rakesh Sawant concerning the letter dated 07.08.2024 and caveat dated 31.07.2024."
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. "The solicited information pertaining to documents prepared, executed, issued or received by the India Government Mint, Mumbai in its entirety contains information received by India Government Mint, Mumbai from their attorney and therefore is a privileged communication attorney and is therefore exempted under Section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act. between the client-
2. No information available in this regard."
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.10.2024.
Second Appeal Nos. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/658040 + (658129 + 658128) + (657669 + 657668) + 657366 + 657092 + 656857 + 656444 + 655888 + 655624 + 655150 + 654853 + 654569 + 654312 + 653920 + 653466 + (653305 + 653302) + 653021 + 652273 + 652553 + 651983 + 651543 + 650946
6. The RTI Applications referred in these cases filed on various dates between 03.09.2024 and 05.10.2024 spelt out a common preface as under:
"Refer to point no. 2 (iii) of SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, which states:
"Sh. Sherkhane filed an appeal dated 21.06.2017 which was then forwarded to the Appellate Authority (Director-HR), SPMCIL by IGM, Mumbai. The Appellate Page 14 of 44 Authority, after a careful perusal and scrutiny of all the relevant documents and the Inquiry Report as well as documents related to the inquiry proceedings, ...."
6.1. And, sought for the following information demarcated here case wise as under:
Second Appeal Nos. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/658040 "In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide a photocopy of the Competent Authority's approval for the execution of the Office Memorandum No. I- 24/321/Admn./2016 dated 21.03.2016 on Shri Satish Sherkhane."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/658129 + 658128 "In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, with reference to Office Memorandum No. I-24/321/Admn./2016 dated 21.03.2016, Provide the exact date, time and location of the incident, as well as the names, designations and ticket or employee numbers of India Government Mint, Mumbai employees who were present during the incident."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657669 + 657668 "Refer to Chargesheet No. I-24/321/Admn/2016 dated 21.03.2016, which was received by Shri Satish Sherkhane on 22.03.2016. Refer to Order no. IGMM/I24/Order/349/Admn./2016 dated 30.03.2016, which was executed on Shri Satish Sherkhane on 31.03.2016 for the appointment of Shri M.A. Bohra as Inquiry officer. On 21.03.2016, Shri M.A. Bohra was physically present at the India Government Mint in Mumbai for the preparation of a chargesheet, for which he was paid by the India Government Mint, Mumbai.
In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide a photocopy of the Conduct Rules/Regulations/Guidelines which are followed by the India Government Mint, Mumbai so that Shri M.A. Bohra-Inquiry Officer can be part of the preparation of the chargesheet prior to the issue of the chargesheet to Shri Satish Sherkhane."
Page 15 of 44Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657366 "Refer MMDO no. 207 dated 15.03.2016 duly signed by Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastav-General Manager for the appointment of Shri Gorakhnath Yadav (Technical) as Disciplinary Authority in the case of employees in W-1 to W-5 Cadre.
In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide a photocopy of the approval of the competent authority for the appointment of Shri Gorakhnath Yadav (Technical) as Disciplinary Authority in the case of employees in W-1 to W-5 Cadre."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657092 "In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, with reference to Office Memorandum No. I-24/1062/Admn./2015 dated 31.12.2015, Provide the exact date, time and location of the incident, as well as the names, designations and ticket numbers of India Government Mint, Mumbai employees who were present during the incident"
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/656857 "In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide the name of the General Manager & Head Clerk of the Administration Section responsible for the execution of the Office Memorandum No. I-24/1062/Admn./2015 dated 31.12.2015 on Shri Satish Sherkhane."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/656444 "In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide a photocopy of the Competent Authority's approval for the execution of the Office Memorandum No. I- 24/1062/Admn./2015 dated 31.12.2015 on Shri Satish Sherkhane. (Do not provide the photocopies of the Administration Note and Electric Department note dated 28.12.2015.)"
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/655888 "Refer to the note from the Electric Department dated 28.02.2015, which bears the file noting (order), signature and date mentioned by Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastav-then Page 16 of 44 General Manager. It is difficult to understand the exact remarks of Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastav along with the date and year. In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide the exact remark, date, month and year mentioned by Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastav."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/655624 "As per record, Shri Satish Sherkhane submitted letter no.SC/ST-2015/07 dated 03.03.2015 as the General Secretary of the SC, ST & OBC Mint Employees Welfare Association alongwith photocopies of three representations of Shri R.M. Kamble (2 pages), Shri V.P. Worlikar (2 pages) & Shri A.S. Ambole (1 page) and the same was received by Smt. S.S. Raibole (MTS-Dispatch Desk Clerk) on 05.03.2015.
In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide photocopies of these documents alongwith the documents which are executed/prepared by the India Government Mint, Mumbai for the same.
If the said documents are not available on SPMCIL's record, then provide a photocopy of the First Information Report (FIR) registered at the police station as per the Public Records Act, 1993 and Public Record Rules, 1997, which are available as per SPMCIL's record. If the said documents are also not available in SPMCIL's records, kindly confirm the same as 'Not available in SPMCIL's records'."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/655150 "Refer to the complaints dated 20.02.2015 of Shri R.M. Kamble-T.No. 3521, V.P. Worlikar-T.No. 3594 & complaints dated 21.02.2015 of A.S. Ambole-Foreman of Electric Department, which have file noting, signature and date as 25.02.2015 mentioned by Shri V. Balaji-Chief Manager (HR).
In this connection as per SPMCIL's record, provide the names & designations of the employees of the India Government Mint, Mumbai who were the custodians/possessions of the above said complaints w.e.f. 25.02.2015 to 28.02.2015."
Page 17 of 44Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/654853 "As per SPMCIL's record, Provide the photocopy of the documents which are prepared / executed (put up to the higher authorities) by the Administration Section with reference to the representation submitted by Shri K.R. GhareT.No. 2704 on 24.02.2015 & Shri S.G. Sahasrabudhe."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/654569 "As per SPMCIL's record, provide the photocopy of the documents which are prepared / executed (put up to the higher authorities) by the Administration Section with reference to the representation submitted by Shri V.P. WorlikarT.No. 3594, Shri R.M. Kamble-T.No. 3521 on 24.02.2015 & Shri A.S. Ambole, Foreman.
(Do not provide the photocopies of the Administration Note and Electric Department note dated 28.12.2015.)"
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/654312 "As per SPMCIL's record,
1. Provide the first official date on which Shri R.M. Kamble-T.No. 3521 & V.P. Worlikar-T.No. 3594 submitted their representation to the dispatch desk.
2. Provide the name and designation of the dispatch desk employee who has received the same."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653920 "Refer to the Administration Section note dated 28.02.2015 with enclosures & the Electric Department note dated 28.02.2015.
In this connection, provide the names and designations of the employees of the India Government Mint-Mumbai who were the custodians/possessions of the above-mentioned two notes w.e.f. 01.03.2015 to 24.12.2015, as per the SPMCIL's official record."
Page 18 of 44Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653466 "With reference to Memorandum No. I-24/321/Admn./2016 dated 21.03.2016, provide documentary evidence as to when Shri Satish Sherkhane received the Electric Department's Performance Report.
(Do not provide the Daily Sheet Order or Oral Deposition of Shri R.B. Amar prepared in June 2016)"
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653305 + 653302 "Provide the name of the employee/s who was the custodian and possession of the Performance Reports of Industrial Workmen of the Electric Department (from 30.01.2015 to 28.02.2015) once the same was received by Shri V. Balaji-Chief Manager (HR) from Shri U.K. Biswas-Works Manager (PW-1) on 30.01.2015. Provide documentary evidence of the same."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653021 "Refer to the official statement of Shri G.S. Babu and U.K. Biswas regarding the Sealed Cover of the Electric Department's performance report on dated 30.01.2015, which is mentioned at Question-and-Answer No. 3,4,8,10, and 28 of the Daily Order Sheet for the period from 11.04.2016 to 06.06.2016, duly signed by Shri M.A. Bohra- Inquiry Officer."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/652273 "Refer to the Official Secret Act, 1923 & SPMCIL CDA Rules w.r.t. Leakage of Confidential Information with regard to working of or any process used in the India Government Mint, Mumbai.
Provide a photocopy of the Gist w.r.t. Confidential/Restricted information with regard to any process used in the India Government Mint, Mumbai or working in the India Government Mint, Mumbai as per SPMCIL record."
Page 19 of 44Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/652553 "According to the daily order sheet, Shri G.S. Babu marked a single tick in the 'Unfit' column for the performance reports of Shri V.P. Worlikar and R.M. Kamble on 30.01.2015. This information was communicated to Shri V.P. Worlikar, R.M. Kamble, and 26 other employees of the Electric Department on the same day, 30.01.2015, at the Factory premises.
1) Provide the exact information about how the communicated information was confidential after 30.01.2015 to these employees.
2) Provide a photocopy of the rules/regulations/guidelines which are followed for the confidentially once the same is communicated officially as a custom as mentioned by Shri G.S. Babu in the Daily Order Sheet."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/651983 "In this regard, provide a photocopy of the rules/regulations/guidelines under which the "Performance Report" of the Industrial Worker is a confidential document."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/651543 "In this regard, provide the name & designation of the employees of the India Government Mint, Mumbai who have changed the nomenclature of the "Performance Report" to "Test Report" as Shri V.P. Worlikar & R.M. Kamble has not been subjected to any tests as per the deposition of Shri G.S. Babu (prosecution witness) in the Daily Order Sheet of the inquiry proceedings."
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/650946 "In this regard, provide photocopies of all documents, records, and files that were actually perused and scrutinized by the Appellate Authority Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha for the disposal of the appeal dated 21.06.2017, along with a gist of all such documents Page 20 of 44 examined. Provide the gist first, so that I can confirm which photocopies I would like to receive.
1) Refer to point no. 2 (iii) of SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, which states: "...the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.01.2018 has upheld the order dated 27.05.2017 of dismissal from service, issued by the General Manager- IGM Mumbai, the Disciplinary Authority..." As per conclusive documentary evidence, the appeal was filed on 21.06.2017 and was disposed of by the Appellate Authority Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, on 12.01.2018. In this regard, provide the names and designations of the employee(s) responsible for the violation of the 3-month deadline as per Rule 38(b) of SPMCIL CDA Rules, 2010 (without any explanation, as the same is not allowed under the RTI Act 2005)."
6.2. The CPIO vide common replies dated 03.10.2024 & 21.10.2024 stated as under:
"It is pertinent to inform here that your earlier RTI application bearing regd. No. SPMCO/R/E/24/00178 dated 01.09.2024 on the same subject matter of information i.e. information on point regarding letter No. NM(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024" has already been duly replied by the PIO vide letter no. संदभ सं. िनमु (मा.सं)/आरटीआई-आर/2024/भाग.1 िदनांक 01.10.2024.
Now, in the instant RTI application you have raised another set of question on the same subject matter of information.
In this connection, your kind attention is hereby drawn to CIC judgement dated 25.06.2014 in the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC wherein, it was, inter-alia, held that "the universal principles of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res judicata' which in the RTI context means when an applicant uses an opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself. He cannot file another Page 21 of 44 application for a bit or piece which he forget to ask, or not advised by his lawyer, or for any other reason. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that matter, in the first ever available opportunity. Even if he does not, it is presumed by law that he asked for that and was refused after due trial. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further the objective of Right to information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of question being sought form same different public authorities to be stopped"...." The commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority and based on the responses file a bunchy of RTI questions form the same or other wing of same public authority, or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public Authority, As the PIOs go on answering, question are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals also will be growing"..." cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but no the public interest would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the Right to Information Act." Hence, information as sought under above mentioned RTI applications may not be provided."
6.3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed various First Appeal(s) between 03.10.2024 and 26.10.2024. The FAA vide common order dated 13.11.2024 upheld the CPIO's replies.
6.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal(s) filed between 17.11.2024 and 30.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653890
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Following my legal notice dated 08.05.2024, the Ministry of Finance issued letter no. 18/5/2020-SPMC-Part(1)(E-300555939) on 13.05.2024 through Deputy Page 22 of 44 Secretary Shri Himanshu Gandhi, directing the CMD of SPMCIL to provide a recommendation after an independent assessment of the matter. However, C&C and SPMCIL informed me under the RTI Act that no action has been taken. I reported this negligence to the MoF, which prompted a reminder on 16.07.2024 to Respondent No. 19 Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha-Director (HR). Refer to the SPMCIL letter dated 31.07.2024, which is self-explanatory. Shri Sinha has once again provided false, fabricated, and incomplete information on each point, in a criminal conspiracy to shield himself and others from accountability. In response to the SPMCIL letter dated 31.07.2024, I submitted a legal notice dated 04.09.2024 to the CMD of SPMCIL and the same was received by SPMCIL on 09.09.2024.
With reference to a legal notice dated 04.09.2024, provide the following pointwise documents:
a) Provide photocopies of documents prepared/executed by the SPMCIL, along with file notings and employee signatures.
b) Regarding point C & C(a), Provide photocopies of the documents issued to any authority including file notings and employee signatures.
c) Regarding point C(b), Provide photocopies of the documents received from any authority including file notings and employee signatures."
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"No action taken on your legal notice dated 14.09.2024."
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 03.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 23 of 447.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/648909
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) "Refer to the attached scanned copies of SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/ 02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, signed by Respondent No. 19 Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha-Director(HR), in reference to the MoF letter dated 13.05.2024.
In this connection, provide the following documents and information up to the date of the PIO's reply:
a) Provide the name and designation of the SPMCIL employees who were the custodians of SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, for each day from 14.05.2024 to 30.07.2024.
b) Provide photocopies of all documents prepared or executed by SPMCIL related to SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, including file notings and employee signatures.
c) Provide the name and designation of SPMCIL and IGMM employees involved in the issuance of SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/ 1370 dated 31.07.2024 alongwith Respondent no. 19 Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha.
d) Provide photocopies of all documents received from the MoF concerning SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, including file notings and employee signatures.
e) Refer to point no. 3 of SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, which states: "...Sh. Sherkhane is making representations to various authorities for the settlement of his dues."
Page 24 of 44Provide photocopies of all representations I have submitted for the settlement of my dues available in the official records of SPMCIL. If no such representations are available on the official records of SPMCIL, then confirm the same as "No representation submitted by Sh. Sherkhane for the settlement of his dues".
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"िब दु स.ं 1 (a) का जवाब: It is informed that as the SPMCIL letter dated 31.07.2024 was issued on the same day i.e. 31.07.2024, therefore, no SPMCIL employee could have the custody of the said letter from 14.05.2024 to 30.07.2024.
िब दु स.ं 1(b) का जवाब: A file noting in this regard cannot be provided in view of the decision of CIC in the matter of K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise bearing appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/0617 (Date of Decision:16.09.2009), wherein it was held that "Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."
िब दु स.ं 1 (c) का जवाब: Query is vague.
िब दु स.ं 1(d) का जवाब: No documents have been received from MoF pertaining to the said letter dated 31.07.2024.
िब दु स.ं 1 (e) का जवाब: Information sought by the applicant is not maintained in the requested format and compilation of the same would entail a laborious search. Further, it is intimated that the information sought is scattered and the compilation and collating of information would disproportionately divert the resources of this office."
Page 25 of 448.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 05.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/644459
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) "Refer attached scanned copies of MoF letter no. 18/5/2020-SPMC dated 16.07.2024 duly signed by Deputy Secretary Shri Himanshu Gandhi. In this connection, provide the following pointwise documents till the date of PIOs reply.
a) Provide photocopies of documents prepared/executed by the SPMCIL, along with file notings and employee signatures.
b) Regarding point C(1) & (1)(a), Provide photocopies of the documents issued to MoF including file notings and employee signatures.
c) Regarding point C(1) & (1)(a), Provide photocopies of the documents issued to India Government Mint, Mumbai, including file notings and employee signatures.
d) Regarding point C(c), Provide photocopies of the documents received from to India Government Mint, Mumbai, including file notings and employee signatures."
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"a-d: In respect of MoF letter No. 18/5/2020- SPMC dated 16.07.2024, no documents available in records."Page 26 of 44
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 03.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.10.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/637026
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) "Refer attached scanned copies of MoF letter no. 18/5/2020-SPMC-
Part(1)(E300555939) dated 13.05.2024. In this connection, provide the following pointwise documents till the date of PIOs reply.
a) Provide photocopies of documents prepared/executed by the SPMCIL, along with file notings and employee signatures.
b) Regarding point C(1) & (1)(a), Provide photocopies of the documents issued to MoF including file notings and employee signatures.
c) Regarding point C(1) & (1)(a), Provide photocopies of the documents issued to India Government Mint, Mumbai, including file notings and employee signatures.
d) Regarding point C(c), Provide photocopies of the documents received from to India Government Mint, Mumbai, including file notings and employee signatures."
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"a: No documents available in records.
b: As per reply no.1, not applicable.Page 27 of 44
c-d: Not applicable."
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/634594
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) "Refer attached scanned copies of SPMCIL letter dated 10.08.2018. In this connection, provide the following pointwise documents from 24.01.2024 till the date of PIOs reply.
a) Provide photocopies of the documents received by SPMCIL, including file notings and employee signatures.
b) Regarding point C(1) and C(1)(a), Please provide photocopies of documents prepared/executed by the SPMCIL, along with file notings and employee signatures, till the date of PIO's reply.
c) Regarding point C(1)(a) and (b), Provide photocopies of the documents issued to MoF or India Government Mint, Mumbai, including file notings and employee signatures."
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"a: No documents available in records from 24.01.2024 till date.
b: As per reply no.1, not applicable.
c: Not applicable."Page 28 of 44
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 01.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
11.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/629967
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) "As per SPMCIL Corporate office record, Provide the name of the person who was present on 13.05.2024 at CGIT-New Delhi along with Shri Shubham Gupta, with reference to CGIT notice no. Appln.CGIT01/2023/322/24 dated 07.05.2024 (copy attached).
2) Refer to the attached photocopy of the complaint dated 07.03.2024 by J.G. Jagtap-Deputy Accountant, against the crime of Ajai Kumar SrivastavGeneral Manager.
In this regard, provide the photocopies of the Action Taken Report available with SPMCIL Corporate office records."
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Please refer to your online RTI Application having registration No. SPMCO/R/E/24/00100 dated 22.05.2024 wherein you have sought information on 02 points. Further, it is to inform that point no. 1 has already transferred to IGM Mumbai u/s 6(3) of the RTI act. Moreover, the information on point no. 2 is as under:
िब दु स.ं 2 का जवाब: There is no such information available in records regarding complaint dated 07.03.2024 by JG Jagtap, Deputy Accountant, against the crime of Ajai Kumar Srivastav, Ex-GM, IGM Mumbai."Page 29 of 44
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
12.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.07.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
13. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person.
For Respondent No.1, Vyom Tripathi Sharma, DM(Legal) & CPIO along with Kushal Singh, Sr. OA attended the hearing in person for cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 13-43. (Refer table above at Page 2-3) For Respondent No.2, Rashmi Singh, DGM(HR) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for case mentioned at Serial No.1.
For Respondent No.3, Devendra Tiwari, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for case mentioned at Serial No.2.
For Respondent No.4, Prerna Puri, AM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 3-7.
For Respondent No.5, J Sriharsha, DM (Legal) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for case mentioned at Serial No.8.
For Respondent No.6, Mehul Rathore, Manager (HR) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for case mentioned at Serial No.9.
For Respondent No.7, Anuradha Kelkar, DGM (HR) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for case mentioned at Serial No.10.
For Respondent No.8, Shivangi Chandra, DM(Legal) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference for case mentioned at Serial No.11.
Page 30 of 44For Respondent No.9, Hira Mani Suyal, DM (Legal) & CPIO along with Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, Sr. OA attended the hearing in person for case mentioned at Serial No.12.
14. At the outset, the Commission informed the parties that upon preliminary perusal of the cases, it has been found that these are in the nature of mere extension of a bunch of cases of the Appellant decided on 18.03.2024 vide CIC/IGMUM/A/2022/658371 + 8 other Second Appeals against IGM, Mumbai, SPMCIL wherein the following was observed and held:
"14. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has provided appropriate replies to the Appellant in all of the instant cases. The sum and substance of the Appellant's grouse against these replies is that the information provided is false and misleading and based on alleged 'documentary evidences' he seeks to challenge the replies and the information. It is a matter of record that over 300 cases of the Appellant against SPMCIL have been decided by various benches of the Commission in the past, wherein over 200 cases are specifically against the Respondent, while most of these cases appear to have been decided on merits, vide a series of cases decided on 26.08.2021 through File No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2019/654883 & others, it was observed that:
'The Commission after going through the submissions in detail came to the conclusion that the appellant is a cantankerous, disgruntled employee who is trying to harass the public authority by filing numerous RTI application asking for all and sundry information due to the fact that he was dismissed from service.. He is in the habit of providing bald arguments having no substance or relevance with the information sought.' Page 31 of 44 The same observation has been reiterated over the course of time in many cases of the Appellant against the Respondent pertaining to similar subject references as contained in the instant RTI Applications during the time period between 2021 and 2023, with the latest one such set of 10 cases decided on 31.05.2023 vide File No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2022/611558, wherein it was held as under:
'Taking note of the above, it was noted that another set of applications were pending with the registry which clearly contain frivolous and repeated queries. The above-listed appeals are therefore dismissed without going into the merits as they are considered multiple and vexatious with a focus on harassing the public authority. The appellant is once again advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act to redress his personal grievances.' XXX
18. The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter."
Subsequent to this, the bench had nonetheless decided three cases in April, 2024 on merits upholding the replies of the concerned CPIO of SMPCIL.
The Commission thus informed the parties that the instant cases have overlapping nature of RTI queries and are found to be similar in their context to these previously decided cases and in this backdrop, the parties were offered the opportunity to state Page 32 of 44 cumulative contentions. It was also informed to the Appellant that his written submissions sent with respect to these cases have been taken on record and duly considered, yet if he has any additional points to state, he may do so briefly.
15. The Appellant expressed ignorance of the averred earlier order and quickly started submitting against the reliance placed by Respondent No.1 on the CIC decision in the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs DTC in a number of their replies to the RTI Applications to emphasize on the principle of res judicata applicable to the Appellant's cases. The Appellant sought to argue that the said principle is a matter of civil jurisprudence and not applicable to criminal cases as he is fighting a criminal case and that tomorrow he will be attending some litigation hearing which involves two former benches of the Commission. Further, he harped on some 1800 pages of documentary evidence submitted by him/uploaded by him. It was also his contention that in today's cause list, the cases are not listed in a manner that he had desired i.e the recently filed cases are listed later while the ones filed earlier are listed in the beginning and these earlier and later cases are interconnected etc. The bench noted the incoherence of the Appellant's submissions as well as his apparent refusal to acknowledge the previously decided case and informed him that his case-wise submissions will be considered eventually.
16. In respect of the cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 1,2,3,8,9,10,11,12 of the above table, the Respondent(s) placed as 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 reiterated their respective replies on record as well as the orders of the FAA(s) with respect to the RTI Application(s) filed commonly with these offices asking for 'documents'- 'prepared'; 'executed'; 'issued' in respect of a SPMCIL and DoPT letter stipulating caste verification process of the employees. The sum and substance of the stance taken by the Respondent(s) is found contained in the following written statement filed by Respondent No.9:
Page 33 of 44"4. It is submitted that after the receipt of direction of our Corporate vide letter dated 20.10.2023, Caste/Community certificates of reserved category employees appointed in the unit was verified by sending letter to the district administration and confirmation therefrom or online through the authorized website of such certificate issuing department. IGM, Noida has adopted the same practice for verification of caste/community certificate of employees appointed in the unit even before the receipt of letter dated 20.10.2023 from our Corporate Office.
5. Further, being a general essential process, this office has sent letters enclosing therewith Caste Certificate of concerned to the concerned district administration without any approval on the noting, hence, no file noting is available in our record for the subject matter. However, letter sent to the district administration (issuing authority) was denied to the applicant, as it contained Personal Information of employee (3rd Party) such as Caste/Community status, Residential Address, Caste/Community Certificate Number and copy of Caste Certificate which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (J) of RTI Act, 2005.
6. Further, the applicant was informed about the compliance of direction issued by our Corporate Office by India Government Mint, Noida and not larger public interest was justified for disclosing the letter dated 18.07.2023 to the applicant which contains personal information of the Employee (Caste Certificate) submitted to this Office to comply with the official documentation and verification of his Caste/Community at the time of his appointment.
7. The applicant preferred a First Appeal Ref. No. IGMNO/A/E/24/00006 dated 29.10.2024 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) through online RTI Portal. The FAA after due consideration, disposed of the appeal on date 28.11.2024 vide Order No. NM/RTI/FAA/2024-25/603 by upholding the reply on the RTI Portal. The First Appellate Authority in its order held following: -Page 34 of 44
'After careful consideration & observation of the all the facts and documents, it reveals that correspondents made by IGM, Naida with the authority issuing the caste certificate has information related to address and caste/community of the employee which falls in the category of 'personal information' of concerned employee(s) and disclosure of which would harm or invade the privacy of individuals and exempted under Clause (j) of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 59 of its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 also held that the personal record such as name & address etc. (which is indicative and not exhaustive) are personal information and such personal information is entitle to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. Hence, the undersigned do not find any infirmity in reply given by the CPIO and I find that the PIO has rightly disposed the RTI request of the Appellant. In view of above facts, the appeal is hereby disposed.'
8. It is submitted that due and timely response of RTI Request & First Appeal was furnished to the applicant/appellant by PIO as well as First Appellate Authority of this department and no malafide intention or delay is attributable on the part of this Public Authority. The applicant was furnished available information regarding compliance of verification of Caste/Community Certificate under the provisions of the Act and letters sent to the district administration regarding verification of Caste/Community certificate of the appointed employees were not disclosed due to having personal information of other employees of this organization such as Caste/Community, Residential Address, Caste/Community Certificate Number and copy of Caste Certificate as being exempted under Section 8 (1) (J) of RTI Act, 2005.
9. It is further submitted that this department is complying the direction of our Corporate Office letter dated 20.10.2023 by getting the Caste/Community Certificate of the appointed employees verified from the concerned district administration either Page 35 of 44 receipt of confirmation from the concerned authority on offline mode or through online verification from the authorized website of Caste Certificate issuing authority. Hence, only letter alongwith its enclosure sent to the certificate issuing authority, their communication if any verified from authorized website are available in our record and all these correspondences have personal information of the employees such as Caste/Community status, Residential Address, Caste/Community Certificate Number and copy of Caste Certificate which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (J) of RTI Act, 2005. No other documents such as file noting are available with this Public Authority in reference to information sought by the applicant.
10. Furthermore, the applicant has wrongly mentioned denial of information by PIO under Section 8(1) (e) i.e. any information/document submitted by the employees in fiduciary relationship, however the PIO has not mentioned this clause in the RTI reply and document containing Personal Information of employees has been denied to the applicant under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the undersigned did not find any lager public interest for disclosing the personal information of employee as it serves no purpose to the applicant and thus required protection under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, applicant has not mentioned any specific period for which he wants to obtain such document and in the reply of PIO it is apparent that this department is complying the direction of concerned authority regarding verification of Caste/Community Certificate and compliance status has already been conveyed in CPIO's response to the RTI application. Hence, the RTI application & RTI Appeal were disposed in the light of provisions of RTI Act and submission of the Appellant is not justified. The FAA has also passed details order after due consideration of all the facts.
Hence allegation of appellant is not justified."
17. Respondent No.4, who was also representing the cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 4,5,6,7 of the above table, reiterated their replies in these cases too.
Page 36 of 4418. Respondent No.1, who was representing the cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 13-43 of the above table, reiterated their replies issued during the period of June, 2024 to 01.10.2024 wherein the RTI Application(s) were addressed individually. The subsequent replies provided to the Appellant onwards of October, 2024 were common replies rejecting the RTI Applications as being repetitive and frivolous.
19. The Commission also took on record the common contentions of the Appellant in respect of the cases listed against Respondent No.1 filed vide a letter dated 04.09.2025 harping at length about the genesis of SPMCIL; origins of his service with IGM, Mumbai; factual matrix of the departmental action taken against him. The following excerpts of his written submissions are reproduced in no particular order to simply emphasize upon the labored and adamant attempt of the Appellant in having his never- ending service grievance vindicated through the channel of RTI Act:
"The entire departmental action was based on: False, malicious, and vexatious allegations Fabricated charges of document destruction Manufactured documentary evidence Orchestrated oral testimony from a retired employee and from Respondent No. 3, Rajkumar B. Amar, the very offender who had custody of the cupboard keys and was directly involved in the unauthorized removal and theft of the Performance Reports from the office cupboard. This entire conspiracy was carried out under the direct guidance and supervision of Respondent No. 1 Ajai Kumar Srivastav, whose habitual misconduct, criminal intent, and conspiratorial role are well established from the evidence on record. G. Enumeration of Offenses: Multi-Law Violation: The 36 accused individuals committed a total of 44 distinct offenses against me, as detailed in Part-3 and Part-4 already submitted before CGIT-2 & Special Court for Atrocity.
H. Current Status of Pending Legal Proceedings:Page 37 of 44
In view of these grave circumstances: The complaint is presently pending before the Special Court under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as amended by the 2015 Amendment. The case will be heard with mandatory video recording facility from 19.09.2025, as prescribed under Section 15A(10) of the said Act, per provisions made by the State Government of Maharashtra. Additionally, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Kurla, has formally referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 (CGIT-2). These acts are also pending adjudication before CGIT-2, both for civil and criminal liability, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. The Complaint and Statement of Claim were filed before CGIT-2 on 21.03.2025, and the next date of hearing is scheduled for 6th November 2025.
With reference to the aforesaid SPMCIL letter dated 31.07.2024, I have already submitted my detailed representation dated 02.09.2024 comprising 687 pages to the Adviser, C&C Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, a copy of which is annexed herewith for ready reference. As copies of the same are attached herein, it is respectfully submitted that, in these 23 RTI cases, the Information Commissioner cannot seek protection under the guise of "action in good faith" during the criminal proceedings presently pending before the Special Court (Atrocity).
In earlier matters, Information Commissioner Neeraj Kumar Gupta directed disclosure of information, holding that the aforesaid decision was not applicable in my case. The then Chief Information Commissioner Bimal Julka also upheld this view and further directed the CMD to conduct hearings in 48 cases, pursuant to which, in most cases, the information was duly supplied after the hearing and the CMD's order. This was because the information sought was directly connected with Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and therefore could not lawfully be denied.Page 38 of 44
In earlier RTI cases on the same subject and references, Information Commissioners Manjula Prasher, Vanja Sarna, along with other Commissioners, acting in criminal conspiracy with officials of IGM-Mumbai, SPMCIL-New Delhi and C&C, DOEA, MoF-New Delhi, denied and obstructed the information sought, thereby warranting their addition as accused in Special Court No. 60 (Atrocity), which is under process.
In the above circumstances & conclusive documentary evidence, and in the capacity of an Information Commissioner, without in any manner participating in the criminal conspiracy of the employees of SPMCIL against me, I respectfully request that the information sought be provided. I further submit that it would be appropriate if this Hon'ble Commission were to direct the CMD, SPMCIL to conduct hearings in the present set of cases, in the same manner as was earlier directed by the then Chief Information Commissioner Bimal Julka."
20. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings, notes that the Appellant has filed the instant set of RTI Application(s) much after the issuance of the earlier order of 18.03.2024 wherein he was strongly advised against filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance and was also asked to make judicious use of his right to information. However, the Commission's advice and stricture has clearly gone unheeded and the Appellant has rather bounced back with more number of absolutely futile RTI Applications, all of which merely refer to assorted references of letter/communication/OM/Appeal/Chargesheet and ask for unspecified nature of record in the form of "all documents -prepared, executed, issued" by these offices or seeks "that" record which proves a certain hypothesis harbored by the Appellant or seeks to challenge the information that he has already accessed from sources or through RTI channel previously.
Page 39 of 44Pertinently so, the Appellant by his own admission having approached appropriate forums to secure justice appears to be continuing with his apparent indulgence in filing such nature of RTI Applications to merely harass the public authority and clothing it as a defense mechanism to establish his innocence in respect of the departmental action taken against him. Yet, the Respondent(s) have in most of these cases provided replies as per the availability of records and invoking exemptions of Section 8 appropriately while some of these RTI Application that were cumulatively rejected as being repetitive are also right in their own wisdom backed by the earlier CIC orders passed in respect of the Appellant' cases.
21. For the sake of brevity and finding futility in repeating and rephrasing the same observations against the similar cases of the Appellant over and over again, the Commission is not inclined to cite any detailed references of the cases decided earlier. The parties are at liberty to access these records from the archives of the Commission available here at cic.gov.in.
22. The Appeal(s) are summarily dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 40 of 44 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India, CPIO, RTI Cell, 3rd Floor, Tower- G World Trade Centre Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 2 The CPIO India Government Mint, Kolkata, (A Unit Of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Cell, Alipore, Kolkata-700053 3 The CPIO Bank Note Press,(A Unit of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Cell, B.N.P. Road, Central Industrial Security Force, Dewas, M. P. -455001 4 The CPIO India Government Mint, Mumbai, CPIO, (A Unit Of SPMCIL), Mini-Ratna Category-I, C.P.S.E., Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 5 The CPIO India Government Mint, Hyderabad, (A Unit of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Cell, I.D.A., Phase-II, Cherlapally, Hyderabad, Telangana-500051 6 The CPIO Security Printing Press, (A Unit Of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Page 41 of 44 Cell, Mint Compound Saifabad, Hyderabad-500063 7 The CPIO Currency Note Press, Nashik, (A Unit of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Cell, Jail Road, Nashik Road, Nashik, MH- 422101 8 The CPIO India Security Press (Unit of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Cell, Nashik Road, Nashik, MH-422101 9 The CPIO India Government Mint, Noida (U.P.), (A Unit Of SPMCIL), CPIO, RTI Cell, D-2, Sector-1, Noida, Distt.-
Gautam Budh Nagar, UP-201 301
10. Satish Ashok Sherkhane Annexure of Second Appeals Page 42 of 44 Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/IGMKO/A/2024/653591 2 CIC/SPMBP/A/2024/653348 3 CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/643434 4 CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/638881 5 CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/637720 6 CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/629005 7 CIC/IGMUM/A/2024/644470 8 CIC/IGMHY/A/2024/656227 9 CIC/SPPRE/A/2024/656189 10 CIC/SPMCN/A/2024/655372 11 CIC/ISPNR/A/2024/651285 12 CIC/IGMNO/A/2024/653094 13 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/658040 14 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/658129 15 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/658128 16 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657669 17 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657668 18 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657366 19 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/657092 20 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/656857 21 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/656444 22 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/655888 23 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/655624 24 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/655150 25 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/654853 26 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/654569 27 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/654312 28 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653890 29 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653920 30 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653466 31 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653305 32 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653302 33 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/653021 34 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/652273 35 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/652553 36 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/651983 37 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/651543 38 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/650946 39 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/648909 40 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/644459 41 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/637026 42 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/634594 Page 43 of 44 43 CIC/SPMCO/A/2024/629967 Page 44 of 44 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)