Central Information Commission
Satendra Biraj Bara vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. (Sail) on 24 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Satendra Biraj Bara ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Steel Authority of
India Ltd, (Chhattisgarh). ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
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. 05.05.2025 06.06.2025 28.06.2025 Not on 01.08.2025
126612
record
2. 15.05.2025 23.05.2025 03.06.2025 Not on 16.07.2025
124375
record
3. 126965 03.06.2025 19.06.2025 28.06.2025 29.07.2025 02.08.2025
4. 20.05.2025 26.05.2025 04.06.2025 Not on 17.07.2025
124373
record
5. 129603 05.06.2025 24.07.2025 11.07.2025 29.07.2025 29.08.2025
6. 12.03.2025 Not on 12.04.2025 Not on 13.05.2025
116536
record record
7. 21.07.2025 09.08.2025 21.08.2025 Not on 10.12.2025
140893
record
8. 12.03.2025 Not on 12.04.2025 Not on 14.05.2025
116514
record record
9. 141251 11.08.2025 03.10.2025 18.09.2025 16.10.2025 15.12.2025
Page 1 of 27
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 23.03.2026
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/126612
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Certified copies of all communications, including letters, emails, or requisitions, between SAIL or/and Vigilance Department of Bhilai Steel Plant and IDBI Bank for obtaining my personal bank account statement, Account No.048104000028574, held jointly with my wife, to be adduced in the departmental inquiry referenced above.
2. A certified copy of the court order, if any, obtained under Section 17(1)(b) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, authorizing SAIL or Bhilai Steel Plant Vigilance Department to access my personal bank account statement without my consent for the purpose of the departmental inquiry.
3. Certified copies of any notifications or exemptions issued under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, or any other privilege /obligation by the IDBI Bank or RBI Notification, relied upon by SAIL/ Bhilai Steel Plant Vigilance Department to access my personal bank account statement without my consent.Page 2 of 27
4. A certified copy of the approval, if any, granted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Executive Director (Works) of SAIL/ Bhilai Steel Plant to the Presenting Officer for adducing my personal bank account statement date 13 February 2025, which was not the part of the. original Charge Memorandum, as an evidence during the 10th inquiry hearing on 16 April 2025,.etc. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.06.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"उपरो िवषय म सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत आपके आवेदन को संबंिधत िवभाग म भेजा गया था। वहां से ा 1 पृ की जानकारी आपको ेिषत की जा रही है ।
Ans.1-4 and 7-13:- Required information is not available with undersigned.
Ans. 5:- Additional evidence was allowed to be presented as per discretionary power given to IA vide rule 25(12) of SAIL CDA rules- 1977.
Ans.6:- Reasons for allowing bank statement as additional evidence is recorded clearly in details of proceeding of Hearing-10 dated 16.04.2025 of the departmental Inquiry against the applicant.
Signed copy of hearing proceedings are already available with applicant."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA vide order dated 29.07.2025 stated as under:
Page 3 of 27It is to inform that 02 pages of information received from the concerned department is being sent to you.
1. . 1-4 म मांगी गयी जानकारी से संद भत द तावेज़ िनयामक िवभागीय जाँच के अंतगत साझा कये गए ह।
2. . 7-13 म मांगी गयी जानकारी के उपल म िन तुत है:
ी संते िबराज बारा के िव िनयामक िवभागीय कायवाई अनुशासना मक अिधकारी ारा गित म है। अतः . 7-12 म मांगी गयी जानकारी जन सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 क धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत नह दी जा सकती है। . 13 म मांगी गयी जानकारी सतकता िवभाग क प रिध म नह है।
सतकता िवभाग ारा पूव म जारी कया गया प .
सत./बी.एस.पी./एच.आर. एवं ज.सू.अ./2025/397 दनांक 16.06.2025 कृ पया स दभ म लेव।
1.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.08.2025 1.4. Written submission dated 15.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
1.5. Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/124375
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.05.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Certified copies of all the Daily Order Sheets maintained in connection with the departmental inquiry initiated vide order no. .अिध था./अनुशा/2025/59 date 10.01.2025, against me under Rule 27 and after the 1st hearing upgraded to Rule Page 4 of 27 25 of the SAIL CDA Rules, 1977, for the entire period from 10.01.2025 to 26.04.2025.
2. If available, certified copies of daily noting, diary entries, or speaking orders maintained by the Inquiry Officer.
3. The information sought pertains to me & the regular hearing of the instant inquiry has concluded on 26.04.2025, and as such the exemptions under section 8(1) (e) & (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not apply. 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The information sought by you is presently under the ambit of Inquiry Authority. since the Inquiry is not yet concluded the information can not be provided. Moreover, the details/documents sought also fall under section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA vide order dated 29.07.2025 stated as under:
"..उपरो अपील का अवलोकन कया गया।
अपील के संदभ म संबंिधत िवभाग से ा 01 पृ क जानकारी संल कर ेिषत क जा रही है।
तदनुसार अपील का िनराकरण कया जाता है।
Applicant has asked for certified copies of Daily order sheets pertaining to departmental enquiry initiated vide XXX dtd 10.01.2025 and its corrigendum vide XXX dtd 27.01.2025. Applicant js Charged Officer in this enquiry. As per procedure in vogue, all daily order sheets along with annexures, if any, are signed by Inquiry Authority, Presenting Officer and Charged Officer and these signed daily order sheets are handed over to Inquiry Authority, Presenting Page 5 of 27 Officer and Charged Officer. The same was followed in this Inquiry and accordingly all the signed daily sheets along with annexures, if any, were handed over to Charged Officer and applicant of this RTl first appeal Shri S a Bara. These are available with the Applicant and he has attached these documents in his petition having filing no. 1571/2025 dated 30.04.2025 in Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur as Annexure A-9 to A-33..."
2.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.07.2025.
2.4. Written submission dated 14.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
2.5. Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSTL/A/2025/126965
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. If the full complaint cannot be shared due to confidentiality under the PIDPI guidelines, please provide:
a. Confirmation of whether my name Satendra Biraj Bara was mentioned in the original PIDPI complaint, pertaining to Qr.1/C, Avenue-B, Sector-2, Bhilai- 490001, submitted to the CVC.
b. The date the PIDPI complaint was received by the CVC and forwarded to SAIL/ Bhilai Steel Plant Vigilance Department. c. The specific allegations made in the PIDPI complaint, without disclosing the identity of the complainant
2. If the full complaint cannot be shared due to confidentiality under the PIDPI guidelines, please provide:Page 6 of 27
a. Details of the vigilance case initiated by SAIL/ Bhilai Steel Plant Vigilance Department in the year 2024, including:
b. The case number and date of initiation of the vigilance inquiry against me. c. A copy of the initial complaint or document that triggered the vigilance inquiry, if different from the PIDPI complaint..etc. 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.06.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"उपरो िवषय म सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत आपके आवेदन को संबंिधत िवभाग म भेजा गया था। वहां से ा 1 पृ की जानकारी आपको ेिषत की जा रही है ।
1. PIDPI िशकायत से स ंिधत जानकारी अथवा PIDPI िशकायत की जाँ च से स ंिधत जानकारी क ीय सतकता आयोग के िदए ए िदशा-िनदश तथा सू चना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (g) के अंतगत नही ं दी जा सकती ।
2. सतकता िवभाग ारा की गयी जाँ च का आधार, िदशा-िनदश एवं स ंिधत जानकारी "सतकता िनयमावली- २०२२" िभलाई इ ात संयं की वेबसाईट म सावजािनक प से दिशत की गयी है जो की संयं के सभी कचा रयों को उपल है ।
3. उ संदिभत प के अंतगत अिधकारी का नाम, पद, संपक िववरण से संबिधत जानकारी जन सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत नहीं दी जा सकती है।"
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.06.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.07.2025 observed as under:-
"Your appeal has been examined.Page 7 of 27
It is to inform that 02 pages of information received from the concerned department is being sent to you.
Your appeal is accordingly disposed of.
1. सतकता िवभाग ारा जारी कया गया प .
सत./बी.एस.पी./एच. आर. एवं ज.सू.अ./2025/397 दनांक 16.06.2025 कृ पया स दभ म लेव।
2. ी सते िबराज बारा के िव िनयामक िवभागीय कायवाई अनुशासना मक अिधकारी ारा गित म है।
3. उ संद भत प म मांगी गयी जानकारी सतकता िवभाग क प रिध म नह है।"
3.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.08.2025.
3.4. Written submission dated 14.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
3.5. Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/124373
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.05.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. The reasoned decision of the competent authority for initiating my transfer on 16th April 2025, including:
The specific justification for transferring me out of the department during an ongoing departmental inquiry.Page 8 of 27
Whether my transfer was within the normal procedures of job rotation. If yes then please provide the certified copies of proposals / records of meetings / approval for the transfer within rules for job rotations, specifically mentioning the SAIL Policy numbers. Whether, my transfer was on pick and choose basis and to harass me as I belong to Schedule Tribe Community. If not then please provide the criteria for my transfer order.
What was the urgency which called for transfer order and release order on same day. Please provide me certified copies of internal letter / memo stating the urgent requirement of the Mechanical Department..etc. 4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"उपरो िवषय म सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के अं तगत आपके आवेदन को संबंिधत िवभाग म भेजा गया था। वहां से 1 पृ की जानकारी आपको ेिषत की ा -जा रही है ।
संगठना क आव कता के आधार पर थानां तरण एक िनयिमत प ित है।
इसके अित र संदिभत प म उ े खत , सुचना का अिधकार
अिधिनयम, 2005 की कंिडका
२(f) म िव ृत 'सुचना' की प रभाषा की प रिध म नही ं आते ह। "
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA vide order dated 28.07.2024 stated as under:
Your appeal has been examined.
It is to inform that 01 page of information received from the concerned department is being sent to you.Page 9 of 27
Your appeal is accordingly disposed of Reply to Point No. 1 As mentioned in earlier RTI reply dtd 24/05/2025, the transfer of Shri Satendra Biraj Bara, from SMS-2 to Mech. Serv. vide order No. 26(R), dtd 16/04/2025 is as per Organizational requirement.
As per the Offer of appointment, the management reserves the right to consider for absorption/transfer to other existing Units.
Disciplinary proceedings/departmental Inquiry has no inter-relation with job rotation/transfers. Inter department transfers are purely on organizational requirement grounds.Point No. 2
No Point No. 3 Denied under 8 (1) (h) Point no. 4 Inter-se-seniority in the new department will be created taking into consideration your all grade dates and compare it with others in the department.Point No. 5
Same as at Point-1 Point No. 6 Transfers in SAIL/BSP are done as per organizational requirement.Point No. 7 Page 10 of 27
No 4.3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.07.2025.
4.4. Written submission dated 15.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
4.5. Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/129603
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please provide a certified copy of the Speaking Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) authorizing the conduct of departmental inquiry under Rule 25 (major penalty) after initially proceeding under Rule 27 (minor penalty).
2. Clarify whether the GM (HR) is legally empowered to issue such an order on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 25 of SAIL CDA Rules, 1977. If so, provide the Office Order, Delegation of Authority, or any Standing Instruction authorizing this.
3. Please provide the name and designation of the officer who authorized the Personnel Department to communicate the said corrigendum or appointment order, instead of the DA directly issuing a Speaking Order stipulated under Rule 35 of the SAIL CDA Rules, 1977.
4. Please provide a copy of any internal noting or file movement which shows the DA's reasoning or approval for the shift from minor penalty inquiry (Rule 27) to major penalty (Rule 25).Page 11 of 27
5. Provide certified copies of delivery receipts (registered post acknowledgements or personal delivery receipts) of all notices, orders, and memos served upon the undersigned (i.e. the Charged Officer), in compliance with Rule 35 of SAIL CDA Rules, 1977..etc. 5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.07.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"उपरो िवषय म सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत आपके आवेदन को संबंिधत िवभाग म भेजा गया था। वहां से ा 1 पृ की जानकारी आपको ेिषत की जा रही है ।
The charges have been clearly mentioned with all the relevant details in the Charge Memorandum issued vide कं . अिध. था./अनु. 2024/1596, dtd 30.11.24. The same was acknowledged by the charged officer on 10.12.24 (copy of acknowledgement enclosed).
1. There is no stipulation in the procedure as per CDA to issue any speaking order at this stage. However, an excerpt of noting of DA regarding constitution of disciplinary inquiry was provided to Inquiry Authority (copy enclosed) for enquiring proceedings in which Shri S.B Bara was the charged Officer. A copy of the same is being enclosed again.
2. & 3. All the orders including the corrigendum were issued by DA himself.
4. 7 & 8. The order issued vide अिध. था. / अनु. 2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 regarding appointment of Inquiry Authority & Presenting Officer had a typographical error wherein instead of rule 25 rule 27 was mentioned. The order was subsequently amended and a corrigendum was issued vide no. अिध.
था./अनु. 2025/101 dated 27.01.2025 which was informed to Shri Bara and the Inquiry Authority vide email dtd 29.01.25 (copy enclosed). The corrigendum was intimated before 1" hearing of the enquiry which was scheduled on 31.01.25. Also the same was informed to Shri S.B.Bara vide πο. Νο./ΕΕ/RTI/2025/471,Dt. 26/04/2025 & No./EE/RTI/2025/476. This is to Page 12 of 27 reiterate that the erroneous reference to Rule 27 instead of Rule 25 in the order issued vide अिध. था./अनु- 2025 /59 dated 10.01.2025 constituting the Departmental Inquiry is a mere technical or clerical error that does not vitiate the substance of the disciplinary proceedings. The Charge Memorandum, which forms the core of the inquiry, correctly cited Clause 25, ensuring that the Charged Officer was fully aware of the allegations and the applicable legal framework governing the imposition of a major penalty. Neither the question of shift from minor to major penalty inquiry nor question of De Novo Inquiry arises.
5. The copy of acknowledgement of Charge memorandum"
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.07.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.07.2025 observed as under:-
"Your appeal has been examined.
It is hereby informed to you that an RTI reply in this regard had been sent vide reference no. RTI/2025/15270/04 dated 24.07.2025. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith.
Accordingly, your appeal is disposed of."
5.3 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.08.2025.
5.4 Written submission dated 14.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
5.5 Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/116536 Page 13 of 27 6 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Date of receipt of, my reply dated 03.01.2025, to Charge Memorandum .अिध था./अनु /2024/1596 date 30.11.2024, in the office of ED I/c (Works).
2. Date of receipt of Inquiry Order, vide no. .अिध था. / अनु शा / 2025 date 10.01.2025 issued by the ED I/c (Works), in the office of CGM (SMS-2),
3. Date of delivery of Inquiry Order vide no. .अिध था. / अनु शा / 2025 date 10.01.2025, to the Charged Officer, Shri Satendra Biraj Bara, by the office of CGM (SMS-2).
4. Date of receipt of Inquiry notice Order issued by the GM (IED) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/08 date 25.01.2025, in the office of CGM (SMS-2).
5. Date of delivery of Inquiry notice Order issued by the GM (IED vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/08 date 25.01.2025, to the Charged Officer, Shri Satendra Biraj Bara, by the office of CGM (SMS-2)..etc. 6.2 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 12.04.2025 FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
6.3 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.07.2025 6.4 PIO furnished reply dated 03.07.2025 as under:
Point No.1 03/01/2025 Point No.2 to 7 : Does not pertain to this office.Page 14 of 27
1. Date of receipt of my reply dated 03.01.2025 to Change Memorandum .
अिध. था/ब/2024/1596 date 30.11.2024 in the office of ED I/c (works) Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
2. Date of receipt of Inquiry Order vide no. क. बिध, था/जनुभा/2025 date 10.01.2025 issued by the ED I/c (Works) in the office of CGM (SMS-2). Ans. CGM (SMS-2) has not received the of aforesaid document.
3. Date of delivery of Inquiry Order vide no. . अिध. वा./अनुता/2025 date 10.01.2025 to the Charged Officer Shri Satendra Biraj Bara by the office of CGM (SMS-2) Ans: CGM (SM5-2) has not received the of aforesaid document.
4. Date of receipt of inquiry notice Order issued by the GM (IED) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/08 date 25.01.2025 in the office of CGM (SMS-2). Ans. CGM (SMS-2) has not received the of aforesaid document.
5. Date of delivery of Inquiry notice Order issued by the GM (IED) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/08 date 25.01.2025 to the charged officer Shri Satendra Biraj Bara by the office of CGM (SMS-2).
Ans. CGM (SMS-2) has not received the of aforesaid document.
6. Date of receipt of the Corrigendum notice issued by the GM IED (Works) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/12 date 01.02.2025 in the office of CGM (SMS-
2).
Ans. The Corrigendum notice issued by the GM IED (Works) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/12 date 01.02.2025 was received in the office of CGM (SMS-2) on 04/02/2025
7. Date of delivery of the corrigendum notice Issued by the GM (IED) (Works) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/12 date 01.02.2025 to the charged officer Shri Satendra Biraj Bara by the office of CGM (SMS-2).
Page 15 of 27Ans. The Corrigendum notice issued by the GM IED (Works) vide no. IED/Inquiry/2025/12 dete 01.02.2025 was delivered to Shri Satendra Biraj Bara by the office of CGM (SMS-2) on 04/02/2025.
Sub.: Reply to letter मांक:ज.सु.अिध/25/15089/04 & 15090/04 Dated 30.04.2025 from AM (HR) and Asstt. PIO.
Ans 1. The letter Satendra/2 Dtd 24.02.2025 was forwarded to disciplinary authority through GM (HR-EE) and document received in reply was handed over to Shri Satendra Biraj Bara on 24.04.2025. Ans 2, 03.03.2025 Ans 3. Answer may be sought from concerned office Ans 4. The letter Satendra/2 Dtd 24.02.2025 was forwarded to disciplinary authority through GM(HR-EE) and document received in reply was handed over to Shri Satendra Biraj Bara on 24.04.2025. Ans 5. Answer may be sought from concerned office Ans 6. . अिध. था/अनुशा./2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 and . अिध.
था./अनुशा./2025/100 dated 27.01.2025 is attached herewith.
Ans 7. . अिध. था/अनुशा/2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 and . अिध.
था/अनुशा/2025/100 dated 27.01.2025 is attached herewith.
Ans B. . अिध. था/अनुशा/2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 and . अिध.
था/अनुशा/2025/100 dated 27.01.2025 is attached herewith..
6.5 FAA vide order dated 10.07.2025 upheld the reply of PIO.
6.6 Written submission dated 15.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
Page 16 of 276.7 Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/140893 7 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Details of the Request to IDBI Bank:
i. Certified copy of the written request or communication sent by SAIL/BSP Vigilance Department (or any of its officers) to IDBI Bank requesting access to my joint bank account details (account no. 048104000028574).
ii. Name, designation, and contact details of the officer(s) who authorized and/or sent the request.
Date and mode of communication (e.g., letter, email).
2. Legal Basis for the Request:
i. Certified copy of the CVC Office Memorandum No. 001/VGL/67 dated 10.01.2002 relied upon by SAIL/BSP, along with any legal opinion or internal communication confirming its applicability in 2025, given that it predates the CVC's statutory status (established on 11.09.2003).
ii. Details of any statutory provision, court order, or regulation (e.g., under the CVC Act, 2003, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, DPDP Act, 2023 or IT Act 2000) that SAIL/BSP relied upon to request my banking data without consent..etc. 7.2 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.08.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Page 17 of 27"....उपरो िवषय म सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम के अंतगत आपके आवेदन को संबंिधत िवभाग म भेजा गया था। वहां से ा -1 पृ की जानकारी आपको ेिषत की जा रही है।
उ संदिभत प . 1. एवं 2. के अंतगत ुत है िक ी सते िबराज बारा के िव िनयामक िवभागीय कायवायी जो िक अध- ाियक ि या है, अनुशासना क अिधकारी ारा गित म है तथा मानव संसाधन के कायकारी-िवभाग की प रिध म है । अतः उ संदिभत प . 2 म मां गे गए सतकता िवभाग से स ंिधत द ावे ज की जानकारी जन सू चना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 िक धारा 8 (1) (h) के अंतगत नही ं दी जा सकती है।..."
7.3 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.08.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA vide order dated 08.11.2025 stated as under:
"..Your appeal has been examined.
It is to inform that 01 page of information received from the concerned department is being sent to you by post. Accordingly your appeal is disposed of
1. सतकता िवभाग ारा क गयी जाँच ितवेदन एवं स बंिधत द तावेज गोपनीय वग म ह तथा सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 क धारा 8 (1) (j) के अंतगत सावजिनक नह कये जा सकते। 2. ी सते िबराज बारा के िव िनयामक िवभागीय कायवाई के अंतगत उनसे स बंिधत सभी द तावेज जाँच अिधकारी ारा उ ह दए जा चुके ह।.."
7.4 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.12.2025.
Page 18 of 277.5 Written submission dated 15.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
7.6 Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/116514 8 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. Status of my letter, submitted to the Inquiring Authority & General Manager (IED) on 24.02.2025 during the 4th hearing of the Inquiry Proceedings, addressed to the ED I/c (Works) & the Disciplinary Authority, for constitution of the Departmental Inquiry,
2. The date of dispatch of my above letter from the office of GM IED for onward transmission to ED I/c (Works)
3. The date of receipt of said letter in the office of EDI/c (Works).
4. Action taken on my letter date 24.02.2025 (copy attached).
5. Please provide a copy of Speaking Order of the Disciplinary Authority, for the constitution of Departmental Inquiry under Rule 27 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. vide Order no . अिध था. / अनुशा / 2025/59 date 10.01.2025,.etc. 8.2 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 12.04.2025 FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
8.3 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.05.2025 8.4 PIO furnished reply dated 03.07.2025 as under:
"..Point No.1 to 4 Does not pertain to this office.Page 19 of 27
Point No.5 No speaking order is issued at this stage. Pont No.6 No speaking order is issued at this stage. Point No.8 Corrigendum issued for typographical error...
1. Status of my letter submitted to the inquiring Authority & General Manager (IED) on 24.02.2025 during the 4th hearing of the Inquiry Proceedings addressed to the ED I/c (Works) & the Disciplinary Authority for constitution if the Departmental Inquiry. Ans. The above received information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
2. The date of dispatch of my above letter from the office of GM IED for onward transmission to ED I/c (Works). Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
3. The date of receipt of said letter in the office of ED I/c (Works). Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
4. Action taken on my letter date 24.02.2025. Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
5. Please provide a copy of Speaking Order of the Disciplinary Authority, for the constitution of Departmental inquiry under Rule 27 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1977 vide Order no. .
अिध.
था/अनुशा/2025/59 date 10.01.2025.
Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).Page 20 of 27
6. Please provide a copy of the Speaking order of the Disciplinary Authority for the constitution of inquiry under Rule 25 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1977 against which the notice for inquiry was issued by the Inquiry Officer vide Corrigendum order no. IED/Inquiry/2025/12 dated 01.02.2025.
Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
7. Please provide a copy of Appointment order of the Inquiry Authority to conduct Departmental Inquiry under Rule 25 of the conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, duly issued under the seal and signature of the Disciplinary Authority ED I/c (W). Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
8. Please provide a copy of reasoned decision to issue Corrigendum by the Disciplinary Authority vide no. क. अिध.
था./अनुशा/2025/100 date 27.01.2025 to conduct Departmental Inquiry, under Rule 25 instead of under Rule 27 of the conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, earlier issued vide order no. . अिध.
था./अनुशा/2025/59 date 10.01.2025.
Ans. The above required information is not available with CGM (SMS-2).
No. IED/2025/37 dated 05.05.2025 Sub.: Reply to letter मांकःज.सु.अिध./25/15089/04 & 15090/04 Dated 30.04.2025 from AM (HR) and Asstt. PI-0.Page 21 of 27
Ans 1. The letter Satendra/2 Dtd 24.02.2025 was forwarded to disciplinary authority through GM (HR-EE) and document received in reply was handed over to Shri Satendra Biraj Bara on 24.04.2025. Ans 2. 03.03.2025 Ans 3. Answer may be sought from concerned office Ans 4. The letter Satendra/2 Dtd 24.02.2025 was forwarded to disciplinary authority through GM(HR-EE) and document received in reply was handed over to Shri Satendra Biraj Bara on 24.04.2025. Ans 5. Answer may be sought from concerned office Ans 6. . अिध. था/अनुशा./2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 and .
अिध. था./अनुशा./2025/100 dated 27.01.2025 is attached herewith.
Ans 7. . अिध. था./अनुशा./2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 and .
अिध. था./अनुशा./2025/100 dated 27.01.2025 is attached herewith.
Ans 8. . अिध. था./अनुशा./2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 and .
अिध. था./अनुशा./2025/100 dated 27.01.2025 is attached herewith."
8.5 FAA vide order dated 10.07.2025 upheld the reply of PIO.
8.6 Written submission dated 15.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
8.7 Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSTL/A/2025/141251/SAIL1 Page 22 of 27 9 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. On which date the complaint pertaining to Qr.1/C, St. Avenue B, Sector-2 was received at Vigilance BSP, in the year 2022?
2. Did the said complaint mention the name of Satendra Bara and alleged subletting of Qr.1/C, St.-Av-B, Sec-2? If yes, then please provide a certified copy of the complaint.
3. Please provide me the certified copy of above-mentioned complaint registration number & corresponding entries as per the format mentioned in the CVO Form-I of the Vigilance Manual (updated 2021)- Chapter III (copy of the format attached).
4. Whether the procedure mentioned at Para 3.6 (c) was followed by the ACVO of BSP Vigilance regarding his observation and decision regarding nature of complaint for further processing?
i. If yes, then please provide me certified copy of the reasons/observations/decision/ noting / approval by the which the ACVO has concluded that the complaint was of "Administrative Nature". ii. If no, then please provide the recorded reason for not observing Para 3.6 {c} of the Vigilance Manual (updated 2021)..etc. 9.2 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.10.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. मांक 1:
िशकायत िदनां क 09.08.2022 को सतकता िवभाग म ा ई थी ।
2. मांक 2, 6 (ii):
मां गी गयी जानकारी िनयामक िवभागीय कायवायी के अंतगत दान की जा चुकी है ।
3. मांक 3,4,5,6 (i, iii, iv), 7 (i, ii):Page 23 of 27
सतकता िवभाग म ा िशकायत की िववेचना एवं जान पड़ताल से स ंिधत द ावेज गोपनीय ेणी म आती है, अतः सावजिनक नहीं की जा सकती है ।
4. मांक 7 (iii, iv):
सतकता िवभाग ारा जां च पड़ताल िविजलस मै ु अल २०२२ को आधार लेकर, िशकायत प म दी गयी सभी िवसंगितयों के प रपे म की गयी थी।
सूचनाथ एवं आव क जानकारी हे तु ुत है ।
9.3 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.09.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.10.2025 observed as under:-
"Your appeal has been examined.
It is to inform that 01 page of RTI Reply vide No.15392/05 dated 08.10.2025 had been sent to you by post. A photocopy of the same is being sent to you for your reference.
Accordingly your appeal is disposed of."
9.4 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.12.2025.
9.5 Written submission dated 14.03.2026 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record.
9.6 Written submission dated 16.03.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present along with Shri R.R. Kerketta - participated in the hearing through video-conference.
Respondent: Ms. R. Ranjani, GM(HR)- participated in the hearing through video- conference.Page 24 of 27
11. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provide by the PIO. He averred that an enquiry was initiated under Rule 27 of SAIL CDA Rules, 1977 and was later changed/upgraded to Rule 25 without any justification.
He further stated that in the reply to the PIO has mentioned that the information/documents have been supplied during enquiry, but complete documents have not been provided during enquiry and even after enquiry and penalty has been imposed on frivolous grounds. He averred that he has approached court of law in this regard and documents related to his departmental enquiry should be provided to him.
12. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the Appellant under Rule 25 of SAIL CDA Rules 1977. She averred that the order issued vide अिध. था. / अनु. 2025/59 dated 10.01.2025 regarding appointment of Inquiry Authority & Presenting Officer had a typographical error wherein instead of rule 25 rule 27 was mentioned. The order was subsequently amended, and a corrigendum was issued vide no. अिध. था./अनु. 2025/101 dated 27.01.2025 which was informed to Shri Bara and the Inquiry Authority vide email dated 29.01.2025. She submitted that enquiry has been completed and penalty has been imposed on the Appellant.
Decision:
13. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information related to a departmental enquiry which was initiated against him. It is noted that as submitted by the parties during hearing, the enquiry has been completed, and penalty has been imposed upon the Appellant. It is pertinent to mention that 'information' as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. It is further observed that giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Thus, information which is Page 25 of 27 available in the official records of the Public Authority can be furnished to the Appellant strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
14. In view of above observations and Appellant's vehement apprehension, the PIO is directed to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to him upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules. In doing so, PIO shall ensure that personal information of any third party viz. name of any officer etc, or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act should not be disclosed and same should be reacted as per Section 10 of the RTI Act. A compliance report in this regard be filed with the Commission by 15.04.2026. The matters are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO General Manager-(Pers. & CPIO), Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Room No.-250, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District--Durg-490001 (Chhattisgarh).Page 26 of 27
2. CPIO under RTI, Chief Gen. Manager-(Vigilance) & CPIO, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Vigilance Division, Room No.-250, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District--Durg-490001 (Chhattisgarh).
3. Satendra Biraj Bara Annexure of Second Appeals.
Sl. No. Second Appeals
1 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/126612
2 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/124375
3 CIC/MOSTL/A/2025/126965
4 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/124373
5 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/129603
6 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/116536
7 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/140893
8 CIC/SAIL1/A/2025/116514
9 CIC/MOSTL/A/2025/141251/SAIL1
Page 27 of 27
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)