Central Information Commission
Sumit Mitra vs East Coast Railway (Bhubaneswar) on 29 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/639752, CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/642573,
CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/648177, CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/657432,
CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/658354, CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/600983,
CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/603097 and CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/604411
Sumit Mitra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Divisional
Railway Manager, East Coast
Railway, Khurda Road Division,
At/PO - Jatni, Khurda, Orissa - 752050 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.10.2025
Date of Decision : 28.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Second Appeals are clubbed together as both parties
and subject matter are same and hence are being disposed of through a
common order.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/639752
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.05.2024
CPIO replied on : 10.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 14.07.2024
Page 1 of 23
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"I want the following information from the Office of the Sr. Divl. Finance Manager Khurda Road, Jatni, Pin 752050 Odisha for the letter number Sr. DFM KUR NPS SM 365 Dated 19.02.2024, through the office of the Honorable CBI Director, New Delhi under RTI Act 2005.
This reply letter was issued by the office of the Senior DFM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway on my letter to the Honorable CBI Director Dated 29.09.2023. (the subject of that letter was MASSIVE FRAUD IN NPS MATTER IN KHURDA ROAD DIVISION, EAST COAST RAILWAY) The most important point of that letter is that (letter number sr. DFM KUR NPS SM 365 DATED 19.02.2024) though that letter was issued on my name but till date I have not received it.
Hence I am filling this RTI through the office of the Honorable CBI Director, New Delhi to know the VERACITY of the matter. And from this RTI reply itself the office of the Honorable CBI Director can know how the competent authority of the Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly trying their best to hide the fraud they had done.
1) True Certified Copy of the Letter (Lr. No. issued by office of Senior DFM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway. Sr. DFM KUR NPS SM 365 Dated 19.02.2024)
2) Any type of material proof may be furnished to me that the letter was sent to me through Registered Post or Speed Post.
3) Registered post/Speed Post Number, of the letter dated 19.02.2024 was sent to me by the office of the Sr. DFM, KUR DIV, E. Co. Rly, may be furnished to me
4) Any type of material proof or evidence may be furnished to me that I have received the concern letter dated 19.02.2024 Issued by the Office of the Sr. DFM, KUR Division, E.Co.Rly.Page 2 of 23
5) Any type of material proof or evidence may be furnished to me that someone has received the concern letter on my behalf.
6) If sent through ordinary/normal post, the name, designation and CUG number of the despatcher may be furnished to me.
7) If it had been sent by ordinary post, who gave the instruction to send it through ordinary post. His name designation and CUG number may be furnished to me."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 10.07.2024 stating as under:
"1 Copy Enclosed 2 The letter was sent through ordinary post.
3 Not Applicable 4 Not Applicable 5 Not Applicable 6 & 7 Disclosure of informations which fall under the expression 'personal Information. Hence the information can not be provided under section 8(1)(1) of the RTI Act-2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 28.08.2024, held as under:
"As the Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005, the undersigned has gone through your aforesaid appeal along with its relevant case files. The information provided CPIO has been verified from the Case file. In this connection, Sr.DFM/KUR's letter Dated: 19/20.02.2024 is enclosed for your information & necessary action.
आरट आई अ ध नयम 2005 के तहत अपील य ा धकार के प म, अधोह ता र ने ासं गक मामले क फाइल! के साथ आपक उपरो$त अपील का अ%ययन &कया है । सीपीआईओ *वारा दान क गई जानकार को केस फ़ाइल से स/या0पत &कया गया है । इस संबंध म सी नयर डीएफएम केयआ ू र का प5 Page 3 of 23 6दनांक: 19/ 20.02.2024 आपक जानकार एवं आव7यक कार8 वाई के 9लए संल:न है ।"
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
File No: CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/642573 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 27.08.2024 First appeal filed on : 29.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.09.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.09.2024 Information sought:
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"THE INFORMATION DESIRED IS ASKED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE HONORABLE DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI UNDER RTI ACT 2005 UNDER THE RULE OF 06.
(1) A letter was written by me addressed to the Honorable Director CBI, New Delhi Dated 29.09.2023 under Subject MASSIVE FRAUD IN NPS MATTER IN KHURDA ROAD DIVISION, EAST COAST RAILWAY.
Reply for that letter was given by the office of the SR.DFM, KHURDA ROAD DIVISION, EAST COAST RAILWAY vide Lr. No. Sr. DFM KUR NPS SM 365 dated 19.02.2024.
In the PARA 4 of that letter it was written like this- An arrear amounting of Rs.5564/- towards 6th CPC Gross NPS arrear was credited to his NSDL Account.
Page 4 of 23In the PARA 6 of that letter it was written like this- Sumit Mitra has made a complaint that, his regular deductions from 09.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 have not been credited to his Account in NSDL.
Contrary to this, it is confirmed that, other than above mentioned deduction, no other regular deductions were made for the period of April 2007 to March 2008.
MY QUESTION IS LIKE THIS The Both Paras mentioned above are ITSELF CONTRADICTORY as in the Due and Drawn Statement issued by the Office of the DRM, KUR DIV, E. Co. RLY it was shown in the 11th Column (NPS Column) that NPS AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED from my Salary for the period April 2007 to March 2008. But in the PARA 6 it was said that NO NPS AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED from my Salary for the period April 2007 to March 2008. So which PARA is Correct (PARA 4 or PARA 6) (2) Does any time the office of the DRM, KUR DIV, E. Co. RLY gave any wrong or false or manipulative information under RTI Act to me.
If Yes necessary reference may be furnished in this regard.
(3) Does any time any Gazetted Railway Officer of the office of the DRM, KUR DIV, E. Co. RLY gave any wrong or false or manipulative information under RTI Act to me."
7. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.08.2024 stating as under:
"The RTI ACT- 2005 envisages supply of information available as material record with the record holding authority, question of seeking "Explanation or Reason or Clarification or Future Date of Administrative action or defining seeking specific rule/guidelines are not coming under purview of RTI Act-2005"
8. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.09.2024, held as under:
"In reference to the above RTI Appeal, Sr.DFM/KUR's letter is enclosed herewith for your information."Page 5 of 23
9. The CPIO, O/o the Sr. Divl. Finance Manager Khurda Road, Jhatni furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14/23.08.2024 stating as under:
"1 Both para 4 and para 6 are correct.
2 Not applicable.
3 Not applicable."
10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
11. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/648177 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2024 CPIO replied on : 30.09.2024 First appeal filed on : 30.09.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 22.10.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.11.2024 Information sought:
10. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 02.09.2024 seeking the following information:
"I want the following information or copies or data under RTI Act 2005 from the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway, Jatni, PIN 752050, ODISHA through the office of the Railway Board Chairman, New Delhi.
A letter was issued to me by the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway, Jatni, PIN 752050 Vide Letter Number CPIO/KUR/RTI/2013/10/647/HQ (2017/13)/SM Dated 15.10. 2013.Page 6 of 23
In that letter a Due and Drawn statement was attached, attested by a Railway Gazetted Officer Shri Pramod Behera, currently working as a DPO in the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Railway.
All queries are related to that above said letter and the said Due and Drawn statement.
1) Rs.869/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period April 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
2) Rs.1185/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period May 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
3) Rs.1185/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period June 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
4) Rs.1237/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period July 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
5) Rs.1237/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period August 2007.Page 7 of 23
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
6) Rs.1237/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period September 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
7) Rs.1237/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period October 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
8) Rs.165/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period November 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
9) Rs.1237/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period December 2007.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
10) Rs.1237/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period January 2008.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.Page 8 of 23
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
11) Rs.1290/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period February 2008.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
12) Rs.1290/- was deducted from my salary towards NPS Subscription for the period March 2008.
a) How the said figure was arrived. Detail calculation may be given to me.
b) Official reason may be given, for not crediting to my NPS Account.
c) The date on which the said amount was credited to the Suspense account of the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
13) In the penultimate column (that means on PF (2) column), all total calculation was shown as Rs.5911/- But instead of deducting the same amount in the summary calculation Rs.5564/- was deducted. Hence the official reason may be furnished regarding this."
11. The CPIO point -wise furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.09.2024 stating as under:
"1 to 13 In respect to the subject case involving NPS deduction for the period April 2007 to March 2008, the position has been brought out in letter No.DRM(P)/KUR/Bills/Optg/NPS/SM Dated 08/08/2024 after a detailed study. (copy enclosed) Hence, the information called for in reference to letter No. CPIO/KUR/RTI/2013/10/647/HQ(2017/13/SM Dated 15.10.2013 is non- existent."
12. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 22.10.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
13. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 9 of 2314. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/657432 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.09.2024 CPIO replied on : 25.10.2024 First appeal filed on : 30.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.12.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.12.2024 Information sought:
15. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"I want the following information or data or question or status or copy from the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway, Jatni, Odisha under RTI Act 2005.
A letter (vide Letter number PAO GSI HYD ADMIN 2024 25 634 Dated 08.07.2024) (the said letter was delivered to the O/o the DRM, KUR DIV, E. Co. Railway on 15.07.2024 at time 13.16.51 hrs.) was sent from the Office of the Senior Accounts Officer, GOI, PAO, GSI, Ministry of Mines, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad 500068.
SUBJECT FURNISHING OF TRUE CERTIFIED AND LEGIBLE SALARY SLIPS OR PAY SLIPS IN RO SHRI SUMIT MITRA FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2007 TO MARCH 2008 (12 MONTHS) REG.
1) The current status of this said letter.
2) Any Letter sent to any other office, regarding this letter, copy of the same may be furnished.
3) Any Letter received from any other office, regarding this letter, copy of the same may be furnished.
4) Name of the Official who is keeping this letter with him/her.Page 10 of 23
5) If any letter sent to the office of the Sr. AO, PAO, GSI, Hyderabad regarding this letter, copy of the same may be furnished.
6) If no reply sent to the office of the Sr. AO, PAO, GSI, Hyderabad regarding this letter, any tentative date when the reply for the same may be issued."
16. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.10.2024 stating as under:
"In respect to the subject the reply was sent through letter no DRM(P)/KUR Bills/Optg/Pay Slip/SM Dated 24.10.2024. (Copy enclosed)"
17. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.10.2024 stating as under:
"The copies of Salary slip that has already been supplied earlier to you, are the only copy available in this office. No improved/better copy is available."
18. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 13.12.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
19. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
20. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/658354 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.10.2024 CPIO replied on : 29.10.2024 First appeal filed on : 29.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.12.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.12.2024 Page 11 of 23 Information sought:
21. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Subject Information Required Under RTI Act 2005 Regd. 10/29/24, 11:44 AM RTI Details References (1) Letter Number CPIO Kur RTI 2013 10 647 HQ (2017 13) Sm Dated 15.10.2013 Issued By The CPIO, Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway. (2) Letter Number CPIO Kur RTI 2024 09 638 Hq (00334) Sm Dated 30.09.2024 Issued By The CPIO, Office Of The DRM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway. With Utmost Softness I An Ex Senior Goods Guard Wants A Very Simple Information from You. Sir, You Have Cracked the UPSC Exam (Civil Service) And Become A Railway Officer In the Office Of DRM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway. I have a Very High Regard For Your Knowledge and Power. You Are Handling Various RTI Matter In Your Division as a capacity of CPIO. As per the Reference 1 Your Same Office had given me the Information on an RTI Reply That My NPS Deduction happened for the Period April 2007 To March 2008. And Most Importantly That Due and Drawn Statement Was Attested By an Railway Gazetted Officer Shri Pramod Behera (Now He Is Working as an DPO In Your Division). As per Reference 2 Your Same Office is Saying Now That the Period (As Mentioned on The Reference 1) Reply Is Irrelevant Or Nonexistent or null and void.
1 Under which capacity or rule position or power you are making Null and void or nonexistent or irrelevant of the previous reply given by your predecessor. The copy of the same may furnished to me. (or) 2 Copy of the any Honorable CIC decision may be furnished to me, where a reply given by the previous CPIO on an RTI matter can be made null and void or irrelevant or nonexistent by the current CPIO. (or) 3 Copy of the any Honorable CAT HC SC decision may be furnished to me, where a reply given by the previous CPIO on an RTI matter, can be made null and void or irrelevant or nonexistent by the current CPIO. (or) 4 Any Type of material evidence may be furnished to me, where a reply given by the previous CPIO on an RTI matter, can be made null and void or irrelevant or nonexistent by the current CPIO."
22. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 29.10.2024 stating as under:
Page 12 of 23"point No. 1 to 4 : No such information available in this office."
23. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 18.12.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
24. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
25. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and has been taken on record for perusal.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/600983 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.10.2024 CPIO replied on : 11.11.2024 First appeal filed on : 11.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.12.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.01.2025 Information sought:
26. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Reference letter number DRM(P) Kur bills optg NPS SM Dated 08.08.2024 issued by the Office of the Sr. Dpo, Kur Div, E. Co. Rly In the above said letter it was mentioned in the point No. 5 From April 2007 to July 2007, no recovery is permitted since it is a training period.
My query is like this need the copy of the rule position, where training period is not countable for pension (nps) purpose."
27. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.11.2024 stating as under:
"The RTI ACT- 2005 envisages supply of information available as material record with the record holding authority, question of seeking "Explanation or Reason or Clarification or Future Date of Administrative Page 13 of 23 action or defining seeking specific rule/guidelines are not coming under Section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005."
28. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 13.12.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
29. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
30. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/603097 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.11.2024 CPIO replied on : 05.12.2024 First appeal filed on : 05.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.12.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17.01.2025 Information sought:
31. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.11.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"I want the following information or copies or data or answers from the office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway, Jatni, PIN 752050, Odisha under RTI Act 2005 through the office of the honorable Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi.
All queries are related to the working of ipas system, (integrated payroll and accounting system) in the office of the Drm, Khurda Road Division East Coast Railway.
1) Date from which IPAS system was introduced in the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.
2) For how many days IPAS system was in trial run in the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly.Page 14 of 23
3) During trial Run any defect or lacunae found by the competent authority and reported to the higher authority. Copy of the same may be furnished.
4) From which date IPAS system was fully and successfully operational in the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co. Rly. Copy of the same may be furnished.
5) Name of the officers who were the in charge to oversee or supervise the IPAS system in the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, E. Co.
Rly. Date range was from 09.04.2007 to 08.02.2013."
32. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 05.12.2024 stating as under:
"1 IPAS system was implemented in the office of DRM/KUR Division in the year 2008.
2 to 5 No information/ record is available"
33. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 20.12.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
34. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
35. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
CIC/ECRBH/A/2025/604411 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.12.2024
CPIO replied on : 06.01.2025
First appeal filed on : 08.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's : 15.01.2025
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.01.2025
Page 15 of 23
Information sought:
36. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.12.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"I want the following information or data or question or status or copies from the Office of the DRM, Khurda Road Division, East Coast Railway, Jatni, Odisha under RTI Act 2005.
A letter vide Letter number Pao Gsi Hyd Admin (NPS) 2024 25 708 Dated 20.08.2024 (the said letter was delivered to the O/o the DRM, KUR DIV, E. Co. Railway on 27.08.2024 at time 18.01.15 hrs.) was sent from the Office of the Senior Accounts Officer, GOI, PAO, GSI, Ministry of Mines, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad 500068.
Subject NPS Subscription for the period from 09.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and interest thereon regd.
As Already more than Three months passed away since its delivery.
1) The current status of this said letter. And detail action taken till date.
2) Any Letter sent to any other office, regarding this letter, copy of the same may be furnished.
3) Any Letter received from any other office, regarding this letter, copy of the same may be furnished.
4) Name of the Official who is keeping this letter with him/her. Date wise information may be furnished till date.
5) If any reply letter sent to the office of the Sr. AO, PAO, GSI, Hyderabad regarding this letter, copy of the same may be furnished.
6) If no reply sent to the office of the Sr. AO, PAO, GSI, Hyderabad regarding this letter, any tentative date when the reply for the same may be issued."
37. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 06.01.2025 stating as under:
"Point no. 1 to 6: "The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the Page 16 of 23 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"
At the same time the disclosure of the above information doesn't serve large public interest.
Hence the sought information can't be provided."
38. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 15.01.2025, upheld the reply of CPIO.
39. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
40. Written submission dated 26.09.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference. Respondent: Shri R.N.A. Parida, Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer- participated in the hearing through videoconference.
41. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 05.09.2024 is not available on record.
42. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
43. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that inspection of records was offered to the Appellant in compliance of order of this Commission. Furthermore, the issue raised by the Appellant by filing multiple RTI applications and Second Appeal is a matter of grievance which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. A written submission dated 27.10.2025 has been received from Shri R.N.A. Parida, Sr. Divisional Page 17 of 23 Personnel Officer and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..At the outset, the undersigned respectfully submits the following facts and observations with regard to the number and nature of RTI applications filed by the Appellant, Shri Sumit Mitra, over the years:
Submission-1
1. Shri Mitra has filed 66 RTI applications since 2013 with the office of Sr. DPO /Khurda Road Division (KUR). Out of these, several have been escalated to the First Appellate Authority and subsequently to the Hon'ble CIC/NDLS.
2. The present CPIO has personally attended hearings before the Hon'ble CIC/NDLS on 21 occasions in connection with RTI cases filed by the same appellant.
3. It is noted from the records of the Hon'ble CIC that there have already been 56 hearings before the Commission pertaining to the said appellant.
4. On 22.10.2025, as many as 16 cases filed by Shri Mitra are scheduled for hearing before the Hon'ble CIC/NDLS, involving CPIOs from East Coast Railway, South Eastern Railway, Eastern Railway, South Western Railway, and others.
5. It appears that the appellant has been persistently using the RTI mechanism for personal and extraneous purposes.
6. His RTI applications are repetitive, overlapping, and often devoid of substantive merit, resulting in avoidable administrative burden and wastage of public resources.
7. Shri Mitra has also filed numerous petitions and complaints in other forums such as the CBI Directorate, Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Railways, NPS Ombudsman, and CPGRAMS, thereby repeatedly pursuing the same issues through multiple channels.
8. His modus operandi has been to first lodge grievances in the above forums and thereafter file RTI applications seeking updates or internal correspondences related to those same grievances, thereby creating a cycle of redundant RTI queries.
9. The Hon'ble CIC/NDLS has already devoted substantial time, administrative effort, and resources in adjudicating nearly 80 cases concerning this single appellant.
10. The language and tone used by the appellant in his representations (e.g., "caught red-handed," "protecting corrupt officials," "huge corruption," etc.) do not reflect the conduct expected of a responsible Central Government servant. His Page 18 of 23 submissions appear to be driven by personal grievances rather than by any intent of promoting transparency or accountability.
11. It is respectfully submitted that while the Right to Information is a valuable legal entitlement, a balance must be maintained between the rights of an individual applicant and the rights of other citizens whose appeals and complaints are pending before the Commission. Continuous filing of frivolous or repetitive RTI applications by one individual adversely affects administrative efficiency and delays justice to other genuine applicants.
12. As a result, the appellant's conduct has overburdened and choked the RTI mechanism, leading to undue delay in disposal of cases that involve larger public interest or issues of systemic importance.
In view of the foregoing, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Commission may kindly consider:-
(a) Advising or directing the appellant to refrain from filing repetitive, vexatious, or frivolous RTI applications for a reasonable period preferably one year-in the interest of administrative efficiency and to ensure equitable access for other citizens.
(b) Issuing a formal caution or advisory to the appellant to exercise his right to information responsibly, judiciously, and in accordance with the true spirit of the RTI Act, limiting its use to matters involving genuine public interest or specific personal grievances of legitimate concern.
(c) The Hon'ble Commission may also consider issuing general directions or guidelines to prevent abuse of the RTI mechanism by repeated litigants, thereby preserving the sanctity of the forum and ensuring optimal use of public resources.
SUBMISSION-2:
Case No. CIC-600983 It is respectfully submitted with respect to the above case, there is a provision of paying stipends during the training period vide RBE No. 08/2017 (Page-7, Srl. No. 45). The copy of above RBE Circular is available in the following link:-
https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/ paycomm/PC5/2017/RBE 08 2017.pdf.."
Decision:
44. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided appropriate replies in each case in terms of the Page 19 of 23 provisions of the RTI Act to the Appellant. Under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the Public Authority or is under control of the Public Authority can be provided. 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.
45. Be that as it may, considering the written submission of the Respondent, Commission further observes from perusal of records that the Appellant has been filing RTI Applications since 2013 and so far, 54 Second Appeals/Complaints of the same Applicant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different Benches of the Commission and 15 are listed for hearing today. In this regard, it is also worth noting that the appellant has indulged in forum shopping and 18 cases of the Appellant involving similar subject matter have already disposed of by this Bench of the Commission. It is further noted that the Applicant has not approached the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of injustice metered out to him or for redressal his grievances, if any. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications in an apparent attempt to pressurize the Public Authority to give him benefit for which he is not entitled rather than actual interest in getting the information. 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.
46. Accordingly, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future. Such repetitive litigation is counter-productive to the RTI regime, and this aspect has been discussed by the Apex Court in detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy Page 20 of 23 whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied
47. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious and repetitive litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest....."
Emphasis supplied
48. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has also made similar observations:
Page 21 of 23"....... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
Emphasis supplied
49. In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. ............................ Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
Emphasis supplied
50. In view of the above, the Registry of this Bench is directed to take note that, in respect of all subsequent Second Appeals and Complaints filed by the Applicant, he shall be required to appear in person before the Central Information Commission, and he shall not be heard through video conference. The Registry shall also communicate this direction to the Central Registry for necessary compliance.
51. Furthermore, the Respondent(s) is at liberty to bring to the notice of the Commission that the Appellant should not be granted the facility of a video conference hearing in any future proceedings.
52. The Respondent in order to protect his office against burdening by this very applicant repeatedly on the same/similar issues is at liberty to offer inspection of record to the applicant instead of providing him point-wise reply in future.
Page 22 of 2353. A copy of this order is marked to Director General of Geological Survey of India to consider taking action against the Appellant for abuse of the RTI system and choking it so as to make it unavailable to other Applicants. The orders of this Commission can be accessed online at https://cic.gov.in/decision.
All the eight Second Appeals are 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 Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, At/PO - Jatni, Khurda, Orissa - 752050 Director General Geological Survey of India, 27 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata 700016 Page 23 of 23 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)