Central Information Commission
Sai Vijita Pydi vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 27 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
Date of Second Hearing : 25-03-2026
Date of Second Interim : 25-03-2026
Decision
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 11
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 11"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 11
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 1109. 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.
SECOND HEARING: 25.03.2026 Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
Appellant: Attended the hearing through video conference.
Respondent: Absent.
1. The appellant submitted that she sought copy of list of items recovered on April 15, 2024 from the quarter of Mr. PTR Gupta which belongs to Mrs. Pydi, copy of Any Chargesheet/explanation sought from Mr. PTR Gupta other than on CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 5 of 11 her Complaint etc. The appellant stated that she had a copy of letter/document in which list of items were written as recovered from Mr. PTR Gupta, and the same was signed by one of the employees of the respondent department.
Hence, she disputes the reply provided by the respondent in point no.5. The appellant further disputed the reply provided by the respondent for point nos. 6 to 8 and 9(b).
SECOND INTERIM DECISION:
2. The Commission finds that the respondent had stated that no official communication is available in their records against point no.5. However, the appellant disputed the same. Also, with respect to point nos. 6 to 8 and 9(b), the appellant alleged that the respondent had not provided the sought information.
3. The Commission finds that the appellant is not specific in point no.6 as to what are the incidents concerning IOCL that she is referring to, for seeking the SOP and hence, the said point does not come under the definition of information as defined U/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, the respondent had clearly stated that the sought information in point nos. 6 to 8, 9(b) is not available and hence, they had claimed Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same is found to be appropriate.
Moreover, the Commission finds that the information pertaining to action taken against an employee, chargesheets etc. come under the definition of personal information as defined U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant cannot use the RTI forum for settling personal matters with her husband. In this regard, attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009, titled Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager V. C.S. Shyam & CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 6 of 11 Anr. In this case, the respondent therein sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff in all the branches of the appellant-Bank and the PIO therein denied the sought information U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Hon'ble High Court had directed for disclosure of the sought information and impugning the same an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court had relied on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, and held that information sought by the respondent regarding individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature and exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Court had elaborated on the personal information and relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:
"12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 7 of 11 in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-
"12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in as 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 would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 8 of 11 Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No. 1. "
However, since during the hearing, the appellant had insisted that the respondent had not provided the sought information to her, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit to the Commission for point nos. 5 to 8, 9(b) to that effect with a categorical statement that "No information is available with their public authority for the sought information in point nos. 5 to 8, 9(b) as per their office records". The respondent shall file the aforesaid affidavit to the Commission - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add and serve copy of the same to the appellant, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order.
4. The Commission finds that the appellant had alleged that she had a copy of letter/document on which list of items were written as recovered from Mr. PTR Gupta and the same was signed by one of the employees of the respondent CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 9 of 11 department and the respondent had provided incorrect information for point no.5. The respondent also remained absent during the hearing. In view of the above, the respondent is hereby SHOW-CAUSED as to why penalty U/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon him/her for the alleged incorrect information to point no.5 and for remaining absent to the hearing. The respondent is directed to submit detailed written explanation to the Commission for the aforesaid reasons - both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is reserved for further 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: 25.03.2026 Authenticated true copy S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26107026 Copy To:
1. The CPIO Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery & Petrochemical Complex, Panipat, Haryana - 132140 CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 10 of 11
2. The FAA, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat Refinery & Petrochemical Complex, Panipat, Haryana - 132140
3. Sai Vijita Pydi CIC/IOCLD/A/2024/647304 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)