Central Information Commission
Bimalendu Samaddar vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 25 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2024/610519
Bimalendu Samaddar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
South Eastern Railway, Vigilance
Branch-HQ, 11, Garden Reach
Road, Kolkata - 700043 .... ि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 : 11.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 16.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 17.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"Please refer Case Study (Traffic III) in MARYADA 2023 published by Vigilance Organization of South Eastern Railway (copy enclosed). In this regard I sought for the following 7 information under RTI Act 2005.Page 1 of 6
Q1. Please state whether any railway official(s) were interrogated/questioned by SER vigilance or NOT. Q2. Please furnish the numbers of railway officials, if the reply of Q1 is YES.
Q3. Please furnish the number of officer(s) & staff separately for the reply of Q2.
Q4. Please state whether any officer was taken up under DAR action or NOT. Q5. Please state the number of officer, if the reply of Q4 is YES. Q6. Please state whether any officer or staff put under SECRET/AGREED LIST on NOT.
Q7. Please state the number of that officer & staff separately, if the reply of Q6 is YES."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.02.2024 stating as under:
"1. to 7. May please refer to the "Disclaimer" at the last page no. 44 wherein it is categorically mentioned, "The booklet is only indicative and is by no means exhaustive. Nor are they intended to be a substitute for rules, procedure and existing instructions/guidelines. The conclusion and lessons drawn from the case studies and articles herein do not in any way supersede the rules and procedures contained in any of the Railway Codes, Manuals and other relevant policy circulars.
This booklet should not be referred/produced in any Court of Law and wherever necessary reference should always be made to the original order on the respective subject." Hence, reply to your quarries is not warranted."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.02.2024, upheld the reply of 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: Shri Swapan Kumar Bhunia, PIO-cum-Vigilance Officer, attended the hearing through VC.Page 2 of 6
5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.02.2024. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 26.05.2025
7. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 19.05.2025 and the same has been taken on record.
8. A written submission has been received from Shri Swapan Kumar Bhunia, PIO-cum-Vigilance Officer, vide letter dated 26.05.2025, a copy of which has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"It is reiterated that Case studies mentioned in the "Maryada" booklet are only indicative and theoretical meant for creating awareness among Railwaymen about wrong practices being adopted by the errant officials. It is not meant for identifying any individual employee or actual case registered against them. Hence, information asked by the RTI applicant could not be replied since it is hypothetical.
It is also added that as per DOPT'S Office Memorandum no. 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14.08.2013 clearly states that "complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005." It is also added in para (2) "The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual."
The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
Moreover, RTI applicant desired information regarding details of DAR/punitive actions initiated against certain employees mentioned in the case studies which is exempted as per 8.1(j). Indian Railway Vigilance Manual 2018 Chapter VIII Para 828.1.c. clearly delineates, "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 disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to carry public-activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the Page 3 of 6 individual. Section 8(1)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought. CVC vide their Circular No. 07/04.2014 dated 04.04.2013 had circulated extracts of the above judgement to all Chief Vigilance Officers for making use of the same."
Hence, allegations made by the appellant about wilful denial of information by the PIO & FAA by disregarding RTI Act; is factually incorrect. However, in the light of the above Hon'ble CIC may pass the order as deemed fit."
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letters 16.02.2024. It has been buttressed with the written submission by the Respondent as noted above. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant cases.
10. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from the perusal of records that 45 Second Appeals/ Complaint cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authority had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 14 Appeal cases are listed for today's hearing and all these RTI Applications and Appeals/Complaints are based on his myriad grievances emanating from his service. It was also opined that by way of filling these many RTI Applications seeking all and sundry information, the Appellant is causing harassment to the public authority as well as wasting the time and resources of the Commission. Having adjudicated upon the number of such cases till date as well as from the nature of queries in the instant cases, the Commission observes that Appellant projects a rather unhealthy approach in inundating Ministry of Railways with so many RTI Applications, ostensibly to pressurize the public authority into settling his grievances emanating from his service. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and Page 4 of 6 clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022, wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide. The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022."
11. In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA, South Eastern Railway, Vigilance Branch-HQ, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata - 700043 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)