Central Information Commission
Sai Vijita Pydi vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 3 March, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304
Sai Vijita Pydi .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO : Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Panipat Refinery & Petrochemical
Complex, Panipat, Haryana - 132140
Date of Hearing : 02-03-2026
Date of Interim Decision : 02-03-2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Khushwant Singh Sethi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26-06-2024
CPIO replied on : 26-07-2024
First appeal filed on : 26-08-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 24-09-2024
2nd Appeal dated : 24-10-2024
CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26-06-2024 seeking the following information:
"1. Copy of the Action taken report till date be furnished on the complaint filed against Mr. P.T.R. Gupta (507166) on April 18, 2024 by Mrs. Sai Vijita Pydi?
2. Copy of the Action taken report till date be furnished on Dr. Chandramouli and Mr. T.V. Santosh Kumars behavior during the incident on April 15, 2024?
3. Copy of the Chargesheet issued by IOCL to Mr. PTR Gupta on the basis of Complaint of Mrs. Sai Vijita Pydi
4. Copy of punishment order if any issued to Mr. PTR Gupta after the Complaint of Mrs. Sai Vijita Pydi.
5. Copy of list of items recovered from the quarter of Mr. PTR Gupta which belongs to Mrs. Pydi on April 15, 2024
6. Copy of the SOP / Measures implemented by IOCL to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future within the organization.
7. Copy of Any Chargesheet/explanation sought from Mr. PTR Gupta other than on my Complaint.
8. Copy of any action including Chargesheet / Explanation taken on the complaint of proxy punching / falsification of attendance Punching of Ms Anmol Gupta by Mr. PTR Gupta.
9. Copy of Disciplinary proceedings conclusion report and the punishment order given to Mr. PTR Gupta on the Following
(a) On the Complaint of Mrs. Sai Vijita Pydi on Dowry harassment complaint
(b) On proxy punching of Attendance Issue by Mr. PTR Gupta on behalf of Ms. Anmol Gupta"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26-07-2024 stating as under:
CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 2 of 6"Point No. 1-4: Please refer letter dated 15.07.2024 issued to you in this regard. Copy of the above letter is enclosed for your reference (Annexure-1).
Point No.5: No Official communication is available in our records in this regard. Hence the same can't be furnished. Point No.6-8: Information sought by the applicant is not available in material form which is contrary to section 2(f) of RTI act- 2005. Hence, the same cannot be furnished.
Point No.9 :
(a) Please refer letter dated 15.07.2024 issued to you in this regard.
(b) Information sought by the applicant is not available in material form which is contrary to section 2(f) of RTI act-
2005. Hence, the same cannot be furnished."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26-08-2024. The FAA vide its order dated 24-09-2024, upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Om Prakash, CPIO along with Ms. Rishu Tandon, Sr. Manager, attended the hearing through audio conference.CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 3 of 6
5. The Commission had called out the name of the appellant thrice during the scheduled time, and the appellant was not present in the hearing room. Also, as the appellant was expected to attend the hearing through video conference from Kolkata. The Commission had duly asked the NIC, Kolkata to cross check for the presence of appellant Ms. Sai Vijita Pydi but it was informed that she was not present. Thereafter, the Commission heard the submissions of the respondent.
6. The Respondent submitted that the appellant sought copy of charge sheet, copy of punishment order issued to Mr. P.T.R Gupta on the basis of her complaint etc. The respondent submitted that the grievances raised by the appellant against the said P.T.R Gupta are part of personal marital discord. The respondent further submitted that they can take any disciplinary action only on matters related to office work and not on issues relating to marital discord.
7. The Commission queried the respondent as to whether any records exist with respect to the recovery alleged by the appellant. To this, the respondent submitted that no communication is available in their records and the same was informed to the appellant vide letter dated 26.07.2024. The Commission queried the respondent regarding the alleged proxy punching in point no.8. To this, the respondent submitted that no such incident had happened as per their records, and hence no information is available in this regard.
8. The Commission queried the respondent for not reaching the venue on time. To this, the respondent submitted that there is an ongoing labour strike in their office premises and the gate was blocked. Hence, they could not reach the venue and informed the same to NIC and gave their number for audio conference. The respondent apologized in this regard.
CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 4 of 609. However, after the hearing, the appellant reached out to the registry of the Commission via phone and apprised that she was present at the venue but missed the hearing due to miscommunication at the NIC. Written submission dated 02.03.2026 along with copy of NIC attendance register filed by the appellant, after the hearing, are taken on record.
Interim Decision:
10. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the appellant has filed the copy of attendance register dated 02.03.2026 to substantiate that she was present for video conference at the Kolkata NIC venue during the hearing, but missed the same due to miscommunication at the NIC. The appellant has requested the Commission for an opportunity of hearing and the same stands allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is reserved for furthers orders.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Khushwant Singh Sethi) (खुशवन्त स िंह ेठी) Information Commissioner ( ूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 02.03.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery & Petrochemical Complex, Panipat, Haryana - 132140
2. The FAA, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery & Petrochemical Complex, Panipat, Haryana - 132140
3. Sai Vijita Pydi CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)