Central Information Commission
Tapan Kumar Pradhan vs Reserve Bank Of India on 7 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. . (As Per Annexure)
Tapan Kumar Pradhan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ि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. 638630 16.04.2024 14.05.2024 21.05.2024 16.07.2024 30.08.2024
2. 625258 20.02.2024 21.03.2024 14.04.2024 12.06.2024 13.06.2024
3. 624347 19.03.2024 18.04.2024 19.04.2024 31.05.2024 09.06.2024
4. 615823 29.01.2024 14.02.2024 18.02.2024 Not on 15.04.2024
record
5. 615620 30.01.2024 14.02.2024 18.02.2024 18.03.2024 14.04.2024
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 03.04.2025
Date of Decision: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 30
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/638630
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I have come across several social media posts mentioning that Reserve Bank of India has set up a committee to review its Staff Regulations, and that one Praveen Kumar is heading the said committee. In this regard I seek the following information as per the provisions under RTI Act 2005 :-
1. Whether as on date Reserve Bank of India has set up a committee to review its staff regulations. (YES / NO).
2. Whether Shri Praveen Kumar VR, General Manager, HRMD Central Office of RBI has been included in any committee to review the RBI Staff Regulations. (YES / NO)
3. Whether Shri Praveen Kumar VR, General Manager, is still posted in the Discipline Cell of HRMD Central Office of RBI and/or looking after staff discipline in the Bank as on date. (YES / NO)
4. The date on which the latest committee to review RBI Staff Regulations was set up by the Bank.
5. Composition of the latest committee constituted by RBI to review its staff regulations. The names and designations of all members of the committee, and chairperson of the committee, may kindly be furnished...." etc. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. November 02, 2022.Page 2 of 30
5. As regarding names, the information sought by you is personal information where no public interest is involved and hence exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act...."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 16.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/625258
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I have noticed massive discrepancies in the Inventory List attached to the RBI letter MRO. HRMD. ALLOT No S-6644/ 15-02-551/ 2023-24 dated 23-01-2024 in which more than 40 items are missing. This indicates pilferage / stealing of valuables from Flat No J-551 through unauthorised trespass. CPIO in his reply dated 14-02-2024 to my previous RTI queries has stated that several RBI officials had entered the flat on 30-12-2023, 14-01-2024, 15-01-2024 and 19-01-2024. However, CPIO has refused to provide vital information such as CCTV footage and video recording etc requested by me. As such I request you to provide me with the following information as per the provisions under RTI Act, 2005 :-
1. Copy of office noting in which decision was taken by Estate Officer, MRO to depute one Manager and two Assistant Managers to visit Flat No J-551 on 30-12- 2023.
2. Copies of office order, letters, e-mails issued to the officers mentioned at Query No 1 above (Manager & AMs) to visit the Flat No J-551 on 30-12- 2023.Page 3 of 30
3. Copy of the report submitted by the above mentioned officers (one Manager and two AMs) to Estate Officer on the basis of the formers' visit to Flat No J551 on 30- 12-2023.
4. The time (hour / minutes) at which RBI officers entered Flat No J-551 at RBI Quarters Byculla on 30-12-2023 and the time (hour / minutes) at which those RBI officers exited the flat after completing their assigned tasks.
5. Copy of office noting in which decision was taken by Estate Officer, MRO to depute one Assistant Manager to visit Flat No J-551, RBI Quarters Byculla on the 14th, 15th and 19th of January, 2024...." etc. 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "Information sought has already been provided to the applicant in our earlier RTI reply No. RBIND/R/E/24/01075.
2. Information sought has already been provided to the applicant in our earlier RTI reply No. RBIND/R/E/24/01075.
3. Information sought is enclosed after severing the information exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) & 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 as per section 10 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. Please see the copy of Office note provided in our earlier RTI reply No. RBIND/R/E/24/01075 advising the entry timing at 11:00 AM. Information on exit time is not available.
5. No Office Note was put up. Please also see our reply to query number 6."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.06.2024.Page 4 of 30
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/624347
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I have noticed massive discrepancies in the Inventory List attached to the RBI letter MRO. HRMD. ALLOT No S-6644/ 15-02-551/ 2023-24 dated 23-01-2024. Pending police investigation of the stolen/ missing items, the inventorised good have been purportedly shifted from Flat No J-551 to J-451 in a clandestine manner as per the Bank's subsequent letter MRO. HRMD. ALLOT No S-7918/ 15- 50-551/ 2023-24 dated 12-03-2024. In this regard I request you to provide me with the following information 48 hours as per the provisions under RTI Act, 2005:-
1. How many keys to the main door latch lock of Flat No J-551 at RBI Quarters Byculla were in the Bank' possession before allotting the said flat to Tapan Kumar Pradhan (i.e. myself) on 07-05-2018, and how many of those keys were handed over to the said allottee Tapan Kumar Pradhan on 07-05-2018.
2. The date and time on which the personal belongings lying inside Flat No J551 at RBI Byculla Quarters, purportedly inventorised by the Bank's officers on 30-12- 2023, were shifted to Flat No J-451.
3. The date and time on which the custody of the above mentioned inventorised items was handed over by Shri R Sudeep, Estate Officer to the Caretaker of RBI Byculla Quarters.
4. Which of the missing items mentioned in Annex-1 of Tapan Kumar Pradhan's letter dated 30-01-2024 have been recovered or located till date by RBI. Please provide the list of recovered items.
5. The date, time and location at which any missing items reported by Tapan Kumar Pradhan were found by RBI....." etc. Page 5 of 30 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "No such information is available with us.
2. No such information is available with us.
3. March 11, 2024
4. The following items have been found in the Single Room Accommodation No. J-
551, Byculla Quarters:
Sr. No. Items found Unit 1 Pillow covers 2 2 Pressure cooker 1 3 Steel Spoons 7 4 Steel Drinking Glass 2 5 Drinking Glass made of glass 2 6 Steel serving ladle (large) 1 7 Steel Bowl (large) 2 8 Steel Bowl (small) 2 9 Steel Cooking Pot (flat Bottom) 1 10 Bucket (large) 1 11 Mug 1 12 Bathing stool 1 13 Door mat 2 14 Broom 1 Page 6 of 30
5. The items mentioned in the query No. 4 have been found on March 26, 2024."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.06.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/615823
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Name and designation of the Estate Officer of RBI who had signed the Eviction Order dated 08-12-2023 and who had purportedly taken possession of the J-551 Flat at RBI Byculla Quarters on 30-12-2023.
2. Names and designations of all the RBI officials who had entered the Flat No J-551 at Byculla on the purported date of eviction, i.e. 30-12-2023.
3. Entry/exit employee movement report for the period 26-12-2023 to 29-01- 2024 of all the RBI officials who had entered the Flat No J-551 at Byculla on 30-12-2023.
If movement report for all these days is not available on the Bank's employee movement tracking systems, then the report should be provided for those days for which it is available. All such reports should be preserved permanently pending final disposal of all disputes, court cases and police investigation regarding the massive discrepancies in the inventory list Failure to preserve the employee movement report will amount to deliberate destruction of evidence.
4. CCTV footage of entry/exit/movements at RBI office premises and at RBI residential premises during the period 26-12-2023 to 29-01-2024 in respect of all the RBI officials who had entered the Flat No J-551 at Byculla on 30- 12-2023. If the entire CCTV footage cannot be provided to me immediately, then at least the Page 7 of 30 same should be preserved permanently pending final disposal of all disputes, court cases and police investigation regarding the massive discrepancies in the inventory list. Failure to preserve the CCTV footage as requested will amount to deliberate destruction of evidence.
5. Whether any official of state police department or any other law enforcement agency was present at the Flat No J-551 when the purported eviction took place on 30-12-2023. (YES / NO)..." etc. 4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "General Manager, Mumbai Regional Office. The information, the disclosure of which, would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. One Manager and two Assistant Managers. Disclosure of names of the officials would endanger the life or physical safety of any person and is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. One Assistant Manager entered the flat on January 14, 15 and 19, 2024, as per the order of Estate Officer, MRO.
4. The information sought by you is personal information where no public interest is involved and hence exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
5. No..."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 4.3. Aggrieved with the non- receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.04.2024.Page 8 of 30
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/615620
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I have noticed massive discrepancies in the Inventory List attached to the RBI letter MRO. HRMD. ALLOT No S-6644/ 15-02-551/ 2023-24 dated 23-01-2024 in which more than 40 items are missing, in addition to several other glaring omissions and commissions. This indicates possible pilferage / stealing of valuables through unauthorised trespass. Since the matter pertains to my life and liberty, I request you to provide me with the following information within 48 hours as per the provisions under RTI Act, 2005 :-
1. CCTV camera footage of entry/exit/movements of all persons at RBI Staff Quarters, Byculla, Mumbai Central during the period 26-12-2023 to 30-01- 2024 including entry/exit of all persons at the main entrance of the staff quarters during the said period.
2. CCTV camera footage of entry/exit of all persons through the main entrance of J-
Block building inside RBI Staff Quarters, Byculla, Mumbai Central during the period 26-12-2023 to 30-01-2024.
3. CCTV camera footage showing entry/exit/movement of all persons at the main door of Flat No J-551 inside RBI Staff Quarters, Byculla, Mumbai Central during the period 26-12-2023 to 30-01-2024."
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. "The information sought by you is personal information where no public interest is involved and hence exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.
2. Information is not available with us.
3. Information is not available with us.Page 9 of 30
Please refer to following observations of the CIC in M N.N.Kalia vs. PIO, University of Delhi CIC/SG /C/ 2009/ 001169/4696 dated 03.09.2009:
"Proviso of Section 7(1) states that where the information sought concerns the life and liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. This provision has to be applied only in exceptional cases and the norm is that information should be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether the information sought concerns the life and liberty of a person has to be carefully scrutinized and only in a very limited number of cases this ground can be relied upon. The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI Applications can be given within forty-eight hours. A broad interpretation of 'life and liberty' would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resources towards replying to RTI Applications which would be unjustified. Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving 'life and liberty' so that it would be used only when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved. The life and liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life and liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation..." (emphasis mine)"
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.04.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision Page 10 of 30
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Mugunthan Sadagopan, GM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The Appellant was informed that his cases under reference will be heard in a cumulative manner as these relate to the same subject matter and similar grounds of appeal. The written submissions filed by the Appellant in each of these cases were taken on record and it was inquired if the Appellant has any additional grounds to state. The Appellant responded by stating that his written submissions are self-contained, however sought to add that the Respondent has provided all partial replies and denied the information without justification. It was also emphasized that the CPIO has a conflict of interest and seeks to cover up various corrupt practices that were followed by the bank with respect to the disciplinary case executed against him.
8. The Respondent refuted all the allegations of the Appellant and alleged it to be unsubstantiated and baseless. It was further submitted that the replies provided in each of these cases are being reiterated and it was alleged that the Appellant seems to develop some or the other allegation against every new designated bank official and it is difficult to navigate through the umpteen number of similar RTI Applications being filed by him that runs into 100 in number so far and about 50 odd First Appeal(s).
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of these cases, observes at the outset that the manner in which the information has been sought for in these RTI Applications or the cumbersome nature of these RTI queries read with the amplitude of the dissatisfaction narrated by the Appellant through his second appeal and written submissions largely indicate that access to information is not the concern here but channelizing and vindicating certain grievances is the underlying cause. Most of these RTI queries do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as these are based on Page 11 of 30 hypothesis, conjecture and seek answers or justifications under the garb of seeking information. Further, the contents of the written submissions filed in these cases reveal a perpetual and persistent vengeance being harbored by the Appellant, particularly against the CPIO and even in parts against CIC and the case disposal mechanism of the benches who have so far dealt with his appeals.
A bare perusal of some of these contents as reproduced hereunder will lend clarity to the level of labored angst the Appellant appears to be harboring without even a tenable ground of dissatisfaction except where he believes the information should not have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that the below- mentioned contents are reproduced from one of these second appeal(s) viz. Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/615620 as a random selection since the contents are cyclostyled to this extent except for changes in numbering of paragraphs etc. "2. Instead of furnishing the requested information, CPIO Shri Mugunthan in his submission has brazenly tried to defame me maliciously, besides making loads of false misleading statements and furnishing unnecessary details which are not relevant to the information sought. His action is a brazen attempt to mislead Hon'ble CIC by suppressing his own blatant falsehood and the rampant frauds, malpractices and criminal activities of his friends in RBI Central Office as under :-
3. Sabotage of CIC Hearing by RBI CPIO :-
At the outset I would like to bring to your kind notice the shameless manner in which CPIO Shri Sadagoban Mugunthan and his colleagues at HRMD Central Office of RBI have been sabotaging CIC hearings and manipulating CIC decisions. The modus operandi of these unscrupulous RBI officers is as under :-
a) I last attended CIC hearing on 20-11-2024 in CIC/ RBIND/ A/ 2023/ 634384. I had appealed to CIC since CPIO had fraudulently denied me CCTV footage of my alleged action inside RBI for which I had been falsely charge sheeted. At the hearing when the IC Ms Anandi Ramalingam asked me whether the information was provided, I answered NO and began explaining how the CPIO had been making blatant false statements in reply to almost every RTI query. But to my horror I noticed that Ms Page 12 of 30 Anandi Ramalingam had become "statue like" on the VC screen with no voice or body movement at all.
When I immediately asked the NIC staff, they informed me that RBI had disconnected the VC. When I enquired whether such incident had happened before, NIC staff said no it was the first instance and that they were absolutely shocked that RBI could do such a thing.
b) After the above hearing CIC passed a bizarre wrong order dated 22-11-2024 stating that CCTV footage had been provided to the applicant (see Exhibit-1). This contradicts CPIO's own reply dated 30-05-2023 in which he himself had admitted that CCTV footage had not been provided (see Exhibit-2).
c) The above incident clearly show that RBI officers are manipulating the drafting CIC decisions. Since RBI officers are fraudulently disconnecting the VC during hearing, the IC is unable to verify the facts and is forced to sign whatever draft decision is being put up to her.
d) That the above is not a one-off incident is borne by the fact that at the previous CIC hearing at NIC Mumbai on 13-10-2023 also the said CPIO Shri Mugunthan and his colleague Shri Praveen Kumar had done the same trick by disabling VC. As a result the then IC Ms Saroj Punhani had also passed a wrong order.
e) There have been several social media posts alleging that RBI officers are manipulating CIC decisions by offering hospitality to Information Commissioners at posh hotels (see Exhibit-3) which is prima facie found true from RTI queries. This needs serious investigation.
f) Such manipulation and sabotage of CIC decisions by corrupt RBI officials is promoting false records in public domain. In fact, all the CIC decisions in my recent appeal cases contain factually wrong statements, which is only damaging the credibility of CIC
4. Bizarre Arguments of CPIO / FAA to Deny Information :-
a) In his submission dated 25-03-2025 in extant case, the CPIO has just provided voluminous texts without any substance, which are mere repetition of the 3 contents in his original reply to the RTI query and FAA's order appealed against. CPIO has failed to furnish any valid ground for denial of the information sought.Page 13 of 30
b) The information sought by the Appellant in his RTI query pertains to eviction of his own personal goods from his own flat. Therefore the Appellant has incontrovertible and unquestionable right to the information sought.
xxx
h) In para 7 of his submissions the CPIO has bizarrely argued that the Appellant's appeal is in the nature of grievance, although Appellant has sought specific information in his appeal. CPIO is conveniently forgetting that all appeals naturally contain grievance against the violation of RTI Act by CPIO and FAA!
i) In para 11 of his submissions the CPIO has ridiculously complained to CIC that Appellant is uploading the information obtained under RTI on social media platforms. However CPIO has failed to furnish any explanation as to why information obtained under RTI from public information officer cannot be shared on public platforms!
j) In para 14 of his submissions the CPIO has tried to defend himself by arguing that his actions deserved protection under section 21 of RTI Act being in good faith. However the evidences furnished in para 5, 9, 10, 11 below clearly show that the CPIO's has acted with malicious mala fide intention and not in good faith.
5. False / Misleading Statement to Deny Information
a) In para 9 of his submission the CPIO has stated that Appellant had informed the Bank on 21- 12-2023 that he had preferred an appeal against eviction but did not provide copy of the appeal. The fact is that RBI Estate Officer did not contact the Appellant in the matter although Appellant had furnished his mobile number and requested Estate Officer in case of any urgency or any information required. Rather, immediately on receiving the Appellant's letter dated 21-12.2023 on 27- 12-2023 the Estate Officer hastily issued an order the very next day to carry out the eviction. In fact, the Estate Officer in his order dated 28-12-2023 has directed his staff not to allow the Appellant inside RBI premises in future. This proves the malicious intention of the whole team behind this act.
b) In para 9 of his submissions dated 25-03-2025 to CIC, the CPIO has made a false misleading statement that after his eviction the Appellant did not contact the caretaker, but rather his wife Suvashree Pradhan sent a letter dated 30-01- 2024 addressed to RBI Estate Officer. However, the fact Page 14 of 30 is that the letter dated 30-01-2024 to RBI Estate Officer was written by the Appellant Tapan Kumar Pradhan and not by his wife Suvashree Pradhan (see Exhibit-4). For CIC's perusal copy of Appellant's letter is furnished as Exhibit-5. Therefore CPIO is obviously misleading Hon'ble CIC with ulterior motives.
c) In para 11 of his submission, the CPIO has made a false statement that he has provided all the information requested by the Appellant. This is disproved by the fact that none of the information sought in the instant case was provided by CPIO. In fact the CPIO and FAA have deliberately failed to provide vital CCTV footage requested by the Appellant in each of the four occasions when he requested such CCTV footage.
6. Information Sought is in Public Interest a. Appellant is a member of the public, and the information sought by him pertains to his valuable goods, documents and cash stolen / misappropriated in connivance with unscrupulous RBI officials.
b. Furnishing the requested information with help the Appellant in providing valuable inputs to the court and law enforcement agencies investigating the matter for nabbing of the culprits and recovery of stolen goods.
c. If the information is suppressed, it will only encourage other miscreants, including unscrupulous RBI officials, to engage in similar criminal activities in future.
7. Ulterior Motive in Denying Information
a) CPIO Shri Sadagoban Mugunthan is a batch mate and close friend of the RBI Estate Officer who unlawfully evicted the Appellant when the latter's appeal was still pending. Therefore CPIO has obvious intention of protecting his friend.
b) Appellant in his previous appeals to CIC had furnished details of the brazen malpractices of CPIO Shri Mugunthan. Therefore he has obvious vested interest in painting the Appellant in poor light.
8. CPIO's Conflict of Interest :-
Page 15 of 30a) CPIO Shri Mugunthan played a key role in the Appellant's dismissal from service as per the evidences furnished in para 10 below. Since the unlawful eviction was a direct fallout of the unlawful dismissal, CPIO is responsible for the eviction also.
b) Appellant was dismissed from service in fraudulent illegal manner through a biased ex parte enquiry without issuing due notice of enquiry or fixing enquiry date in mutual consultation, without providing requested documents, without allowing any of the defence witnesses, without providing video recording of enquiry and finally by fraudulently distorting the hearing minutes. The Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer, Competent Authority and all the prosecution witnesses were from the same department HRMD of RBI where the CPIO Shri Mugunthan is posted.
c) CPIO Mugunthan is a batch mate and close friend of the RBI Estate Officer Shri R Sudeep under whose orders the unlawful eviction was carried out. Therefore CPIO has a vested interest in protecting his friends by suppressing incriminating evidences pertaining to their malpractices from disclosure under RTI.
d) During his service career the Appellant has exposed mega scams in HRMD Central Office of RBI where the CPIO is posted. These scams pertain to irregularities and nepotism in recruitment, promotion, transfer and posting of RBI employees, awarding of various contracts etc. CPIO Shri Mugunthan being an officer of the same Department is also a part of the corrupt network.
e) CPIO Shri Mugunthan harbours malicious intention towards the Appellant as per the evidences furnished in para 9 below.
f) CPIO Shri Mugunthan has a previous history of blatantly denying information or providing false/ misleading information, as can be seen from the evidences furnished in para 11 below.
g) Shri Mugunthan is perhaps the longest serving CPIO in RBI, despite his history of blatant abuse of RTI Act and various statutory provisions. His continued posting in HRMD and as CPIO even violates CVC guidelines regarding Staff Rotation in sensitive areas.
9. Defamation of Appellant by CPIO :-
a) In para 10 of his submissions the CPIO has alleged that the Appellant on several occasions had misbehaved with various persons due to which disciplinary action was initiated against him.
However CPIO had failed to provide CCTV footage of the Appellant's alleged misconduct leading to Page 16 of 30 the false charge sheet, and thereafter sabotaged the CIC hearing on 20-11-2024 as detailed in para 3 above. In fact, CPIO is suppressing the fact that Appellant was fraudulently dismissed from service primarily due to the malicious actions of the CPIO Shri Mugunthan himself as evidenced in para 10 below. The Appellant has lodged writ petition before High Court against the fraudulent dismissal and false charge sheet, and RBI has failed to submit reply till date. In fact the Appellant has been acquitted from all false charges levelled against him vide Hyderabad court judgment dated 26-12-2023, extract of which is attached as Exhibit-6. Appellant has since filed suit for damages against the unscrupulous officers before court. Although CPIO has received copy of court judgment and Appellant's court notice long ago, he has deliberately made such defamatory comments in his submission to CIC with malicious ulterior motive to show the Appellant in poor light.
xxx.."
Now, for the sake of propriety, we may also refer to the individual contentions of the Appellant against the reply provided to each of these RTI Applications worded in the following manner:
CIC/ RBIND/A/2024/638630
a) In his submission dated 25-03-2025, the CPIO has argued that Names of Committee members is third party personal information, disclosure of which will be unwarranted invasion of their privacy.
Nothing can be farther from truth, since to the Appellant's knowledge names of all committee members are routinely disclosed by Government and public sector organisations without any exception. b) If CPIO thought disclosure of committee member's names was third party personal information, then he should have issued notice to the committee members within 5 days as per section 11 (1) of RTI Act. Since he has not done so, he cannot have any excuse to deny the information. c) CPIO has further argued that since amendment of RBI Staff Regulation is under process, names of committee members cannot be revealed. This is baseless, since names of committee members have to be announced when the committee 3 is formed, and not after the committee is disbanded after completing its assignment. d) The information sought vide queries no 6, 7, 8, 9 do not constitute third party personal information. There is absolute no public harm in disclosure of such information. Especially Terms of Reference of a Committee has to be disclosed at the time of formation of the committee. e) As per section 8 (1) of RTI Act information which cannot be denied to Parliament or State Legislature cannot be denied to any Page 17 of 30 person. Since amendment of RBI Staff Regulations has to be placed before Parliament, and since Government of India has written to RBI Governor in this regard, information regarding committee members is public information which cannot be denied to the Appellant. 5. False Statement to Deny Information In his query No 10 the Appellant had sought copies of correspondence between RBI and Government of India regarding amendment of RBI Staff Regulations. CPIO replied that no information is available. However, Government of India had written letters to RBI requesting copy of draft amendment of RBI Staff Regulations. Copy of one such letter dated 05-03-2019 is furnished as Exhibit-
4. Therefore CPIO is obviously making a false statement to deny information.."
CIC/ RBIND/A/2024/625258
c) In his reply dated 21-03-2024 to the queries No 3, 6, 10, 14, 19, 20 etc, the CPIO had removed the names and signatures etc of various officials from the documents furnished. If CPIO thought this was third party personal information, then he should have issued notice to such third party persons within 5 days as per section 11 (1) of RTI Act. Since he has not done so, he cannot have any excuse to deny the information. d) As per section 8 (1) of RTI Act information which cannot be denied to Parliament or State Legislature cannot be denied to any person. Since matters pertaining to stealing / misappropriation of citizen's valuable goods and official identity documents cannot be denied to Parliament or Legislature, CPIO has absolutely no justification to deny the same. e) In reply to Appellant's query No 3 the CPIO provided only the first page of an office note which does even indicate the date. Only first two paragraphs of the office note are visible. The remaining portions have not been provided. The names and signatures of the visiting officers have been removed. In para-2 of the office note it is stated that the visiting representatives had certified that they had witnessed eviction proceedings. However copies of their certificates and observations were not provided. f) In reply to Appellant's query No 4 the CPIO furnished only the entry time, saying that exit time is not available. In reply to Appellant's query No 18 also he has stated the time of putting padlock on door is not available. This is not acceptable, since the Bank in its affidavits dated 20-01-2024 and 29-02-2024 submitted to Mumbai City Civil Court has stated that the Bank has video recording of the entire eviction process conducted on 30-12-2023. That means the entry and exit of RBI officers to my flat had been video recorded. Further, officers deputed for any task have to indicate start and end time of their task in their reports, failing which such report is not acceptable. Even the Bank's CCTV cameras automatically record the entry and exit of all persons..."
Page 18 of 30CIC/ RBIND/A/2024/624347
c) In his reply to Appellant's Query No 1 the CPIO had stated that he had no information regarding the number of keys to the Appellant's flat main door in Bank's possession before handing over possession to Appellant, and the number of keys handed over to Appellant. This information is always recorded in the registers maintained by the Caretaker. Therefore CPIO cannot argue that he has no information. If the caretaker's registers are lost, or caretaker did not make any entries in the registers, then he has to clarify the same, instead of blankly stating that he has no information. Because of such bizarre attitude of the CPIO the Appellant is unnecessarily forced to make further RTI queries.
d) In his reply to Appellant's Query No 2, the CPIO stated that he had no information regarding the date and time when the inventorised items were shifted from Flat No J-551 to Flat No J-451. This is not acceptable, since all shifting of inventories have to be mandatorily entered in register. In fact, an RBI officer named Jeetendra Goswami was recently dismissed from service for his alleged failure to enter shifting of inventories on Bank's register. In such a scenario it is not plausible or acceptable by any standards that RBI Estate Officer himself has not entered inventory shifting in the relevant registers. e) In his reply to Appellant's Query No 6, the CPIO bizarrely stated that whether the discrepancy list had been reconciled with the inventory. Appellant sought this information in the form of a simple YES or NO. This information is readily available with the Estate Officer whose duty is to ensure such reconciliation.."
CIC/ RBIND/A/2024/615823 "b) The CCTV footage, video recording and photographs sought by the Appellant in his RTI query pertains to eviction of his own personal goods from his own flat. Therefore if any person has right to obtain the said information, then naturally it 3 has to be the Appellant himself first. There can be absolutely no justification in denying the video recording of the Appellant's own personal items to him!
c) In his reply dated 14-02-2024 to the RTI query, the CPIO had argued that disclosure of the names of certain persons would endanger the life or physical safety of those persons. However he has failed to explain how disclosing the names of persons entering the Appellant's flat would endanger their lives unless they were involved in some criminal activities. And if the RBI officials are indeed involved in some criminal activities, why should they enjoy any protection from disclosure. It may be noted that even Members of Parliament have to publicly disclose their criminal records, therefore RBI officials cannot enjoy any such unwarranted exemption. d) If CPIO thought disclosure of the names of the Page 19 of 30 people entering the Appellant's flat during his absence was third party personal information, then he should have issued notice to such third party persons within 5 days as per section 11 (1) of RTI Act. Since he has not done so, he cannot have any excuse to deny the information."
CIC/ RBIND/A/2024/615620 "In his reply to Appellant's Query No 1 the CPIO had stated that the CCTV footage was personal information where no public interest was involved. Nothing can be more bizarre and farther from truth, since the main entrance of RBI Quarters at Byculla abuts a major public road. Therefore the CCTV footage sought constitutes public information. Such CCTV footages are being routinely shared on public domain and social media by both Central and State Governments as well as by law enforcement agencies to create public awareness. CIC may personally examine the thousands of CCTV video clips freely available on social media showing various incidents of accident, murder, theft and hit and run etc. Further the Appellant is a member of public, and the information sought pertains to the stealing / misappropriation of his belongings and official documents. Therefore disclosure of the information sought will serve larger public interest. Therefore, the CPIO's contention is not acceptable by any stretch of logic. d) In his reply to Appellant's Queries No 2 and 3, the CPIO stated that no information was available. This is not acceptable, since the entrance to J-Block inside RBI Staff Quarters is captured by CCTV camera installed inside the quarters...."
10. Here, it is also pertinent to place on record the common contents of the written submissions filed by the CPIO in each of these cases, which are being rebutted by the Appellant at extensive length in the above-mentioned arguments:
"9. It is respectfully submitted that the appellant, who was an employee of RBI, was on unauthorized absence since June 1, 2020, for more than three years and was Charge Sheeted on March 14, 2023, and dismissed with effect from September 13, 2023. A single room accommodation was allotted to the appellant in Reserve Bank of India Staff quarters, Byculla in May 7, 2018. Consequent upon his dismissal from the service of the Bank on September 13, 2023 and despite being advised by the Bank to vacate the SRA, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on November 22, 2023 Further, since the appellant did not abide by the show cause notice, he was issued an order of eviction under sub section (2) of section 3B of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occuptants) Act, 1971 (PP Act 1971 wherein he was informed to vacate Banks single room accommodation (SRA) No. J Page 20 of 30 551 within 15 days of the orders dated December 8, 2023 and in the event of failure to comply with the said orders that the appellant and all other persons concerned are liable to be evicted from the Banks flat. Again, despite the advice, the appellant did not vacate the flat and he informed the Bank that he has preferred an appeal on December 21, 2023 and requested the Bank not to enforce eviction proceedings against him. Neither did the Bank receive any such notice or copy of the alleged appeal, nor did the appellant present himself to take desired permission to remove his goods from the premises. On December 30, 2023, the appellant was evicted from the said premises by the Bank. The appellant was informed on January 2, 2024, that any property belonging to him and remaining on the said premises would be liable to be removed or disposed of by public auction. However, neither did he communicate to the Bank, nor he presented himself to take permission to remove his goods from the premises. Since there was no move from the appellant, the goods were removed from SRA No. J. 551 and were shifted to J 541 under the safe custody of Caretaker, RBI, Byculla and further the appellant was issued a notice dated March 12, 2024 that his goods have been kept in safe custody of the caretaker. However, the appellant did not communicate with the caretaker. Later, Smt Suvashree Pradhan, spouse of the appellant as claimed by her sent a letter dated January 30, 2024, addressed to Banks Estate Officer of a few missing items belonging to Shri Pradhan from their flat. Hence it is humbly submitted that the appellant was provided time and opportunity to remove his belongings from his allotted flat, but he chose not to. Now, the appellant has challenged the reply of the CPIO on the grounds that CPIO has denied the information and contented obstruction of justice and alleged the CPIO of playing sinister role of getting the appellant illegally and unfairly dismissed from the services of the Bank by giving all false statements. His appeal is more in the form of grievance.
10. Further it is humbly submitted that the appellant on multiple occasion misbehaved with the officials of the Bank and disciplinary actions initiated against him; with no improvement in his conduct. The appellant also has multiple times referred to the Officials of the Bank, including the CPIO and FAA, as 'Unscrupulous/corrupt/errant.' In this connection, the Hon'ble CIC, in their order CIC/RBIND/A/2022/649098 dated October 18, 2023, made the following remarks regarding the accusatory and unparliamentary language used by the appellant in his earlier RTI applications:
'Similarly, the Commission has also taken note of the unparliamentary language and unwarranted disdainful phrases, and remarks made against the CPIO and other RBI officials, none of which is a prerequisite for accessing information under the RTI Act. The Appellant is Page 21 of 30 sternly advised against the usage of intemperate and denigratory language in his RTI correspondences in the future.' Additionally, the appellant has made several allegations against certain officials of the Bank through various communications with the Bank and is also misusing the RTI platform to seek redressal of his grievances arising from the disciplinary action taken against him by the Bank.
In the instant second appeal too he has accused the CPIO and the FAA by using terms such as "untrustworthy"; "irrational behaviour" "preposterous demeanor " and "appear to be in unholy collusion" "double standard" against the CPIO and the FAAs of the Bank. The appellants' usage of such accusatory and impolite language is totally unacceptable and also against Hon'ble CIC orders.
11. It is also submitted that the information sought by the appellant in various RTI applications is voluminous to which the CPIOs and the First Appellate Authorities have been providing all the information, as available and strictly in terms of the RTI Act. The Bank has maintained multiple files of the appellant, spread across many divisions/departments/desks and Offices since he raised multiple queries on various subject matters. Further, the appellant has also made threatening and intimidating remarks against many Officers of the Bank who have performed their official duties and abused employees of the Bank (including the Top Management) through his various communications addressed to the Bank. His tone and tenor in his RTI applications, as well as other communications with the Bank, are accusatory and with false allegations against the Bank. Further, the appellant has been uploading the information and documents provided to him by the Bank in response to his RTI applications on social media platforms terming it as' public information'.
12. It is most humbly submitted that all the queries raised by the appellant have been addressed by the CPIO and reply provided to each of the queries...
XXX
13. It is further submitted that RBI, being a full-service Central Bank, performs a wide array of vital functions. It is neither necessary nor desirable that its own employee(appellant) makes such a huge number of references, thereby occupying the precious time of the Bank, including the top Management. The appellants' actions are detrimental to the interest of the Bank. An employer would find it difficult to Page 22 of 30 function smoothly when burdened with such difficult employees as the appellant, who is concerned only about his rights and has no regard for his duty towards his employer.
14. It is further submitted that Section 21 of the RTI Act provides protection of action taken in good faith. The CPIO has considered the application of the appellant within the purview of the RTI Act. There is no procedural lacuna or any mala- fide intention on the part of the CPIO in replying to the applicant/complainant.
15. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the CPIO and FAA had duly discharged their obligations under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and the statement made by the appellant is without any basis. There is no merit in the appeal and the appellant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by him..."
11. Having considered the exhaustive contents on record, the sum and substance of the Appellant's contentions with respect to the replies provided to him is that the CPIO ought to have sought for the consent of third parties under Section 11 of the RTI Act and that unavailable information according to his belief should be available in the records. The Appellant is advised that Section 11 of the RTI Act is not a compulsory mandate for the CPIO in all cases where third party information is involved, Section 11 prescribes the process to be followed only where the CPIO "intends" to disclose the records. Further, as regards the arguments challenging the correctness of the factual information or statements tendered by the CPIO, the Appellant may note that adjudication on these aspects is outside the purview of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is invited to certain key precedents as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) Page 23 of 30 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
12. The Appellant is also suitably advised that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."Page 24 of 30
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:Page 25 of 30
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. The Appellant is thus advised by the Commission to exercise his right to information judiciously, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the Page 26 of 30 necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
14. The findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter(s) largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant. Here, the Appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act:
In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to Page 27 of 30 reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx '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 beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
15. With the above observations and advisory, the Commission upholds the replies and submissions of the CPIO.
16. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Page 28 of 30Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 07.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Reserve Bank of India, CPIO, (HRMD), Ria Division, Central Office, 21st Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 2 Tapan Kumar Pradhan Page 29 of 30 Annexure of Second Appeals Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/RBIND/A/2024/638630 2 CIC/RBIND/A/2024/625258 3 CIC/RBIND/A/2024/624347 4 CIC/RBIND/A/2024/615823 5 CIC/RBIND/A/2024/615620 Page 30 of 30 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)