Central Information Commission
Bimalendu Samaddar vs South Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 25 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SERLK/A/2024/613310
Bimalendu Samaddar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
South Eastern Railway, Vigilance
Branch-HQ, 11, Garden Reach
Road, Kolkata - 700043 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.02.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 19.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 22.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"I am Bimalendu Samaddar, Retd. Dy.CEE/HQ/ER. During my tenure as Sr.DEE(OP)/CKP (2010-2011) the false credential submission in Tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008 by M/s.Page 1 of 9
Pawan Kumar Sharma was came to light where tender was finalized by predecessor. Later on I was interrogated by SER Vigilance for that tender notice itself & put me under 'Secret List' in the year 2016. Thereafter for the same ground one major penalty charge-sheet was issued in the year 2017 & a minor penalty punishment was issued against me in the year 2018. Finally I was prematurely retired in the year 2019 under rule 1802(a) of IREC Vol. II (as per review documents & vigilance history card) for forgery in tender system by the contractor in CKP division. But so far my knowledge is concern till date that tender finalizing officers (of tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008) were neither put them under 'Secret/Agreed' list & taken action under any D&A nor rewarded premature retirement to anyone under rule 1802(a) of IREC Vol. II. Above all I am the only railway official who directly affected for this fake credential submission of Tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008.
A. After a long pause of more than 12 years railway finally punished M/s. Pawan Kumar Sharma by banning from railway business for 5 years (vide RB letter no. 2022/Elect(TRS)/225/1(Vig), Dated: 20/09/2022) for submission of false credential in tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008. This banning letter was circulated to all concern (including GMs, PCEEs, CVOs, PFAs & so on over IR) & available in public domain. Being unsatisfied M/s. Pawan Kumar Sharma filed a case vide WP(C) No. 5215 of 2022 before The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court against that banning & later it was disposed in favor of railways.
B. In point nos. 10 & 11 of the petition of WP(C) No. 5215 of 2022 (enclosed in page no. 3 to 5 of attached documents), the petitioner ascertained that the LOA was issued in the year 2008 after credential verification by tender committee.
C. Sri Lalit Kumar Sahoo, Sr.DEE(OP)/CKP/SERLY, on behalf of Railway submitted counter-affidavit on 03/05/2023 against the WP(C) No. 5215 of 2022 where he officially admitted in point no. 12 that 'disciplinary action has been taken against the railway officials held responsible for failing to verify the credential submitted by M/s. Pawan Kumar Sharma/Petitioner' (enclosed in page no. 6 of attached documents) and later he also certified that was true to his information derived from the records of the case (mentioned in point no. 22 of counter-affidavit on dated 03/05/2023 submitted to The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court).Page 2 of 9
D. In response to counter-affidavit of railway M/s. Pawan Kumar Sharma submitted reply on 19/07/2023 and in point no. 10 he empathically denied the counter-affidavit of railway by adding RTI (No. SERLY/R/E/23/01096, Dated: 31.05.2023) information furnished on 05/06/2023 by the same Sr.DEE(OP)/CKP/SERLY where it was mentioned that the whole case file under the custody of vigilance no relevant documents for the subject matter available in his office (enclosed in page nos. 7 to 10 attached documents).
E. I appealed for same information through RTI Vide no. SERLY/R/E/20/00347 Dated: 23/05/2020 (almost 3 years before of RTI No. SERLY/R/E/23/01096) which was disposed on by CKP division stating almost same version written to M/s. Pawan Kumar Sharma mentioned in point no. D above. Later even after CIC decision CKP division/SERLY being incompetent authority is failed to comply (enclosed in page nos. 11 to 18 of attached documents).
Now I sought for information in 8 numbers (in bold) through RTI Act 2005 as mentioned below.
Q1. Please state in 'YES' or 'NO' whether Sr. DEE(OP)/CKP is competent to furnish the RTI reply (in the year 2020 & 2023) about D&A action of his predecessors/any Gazetted Officers who worked in CKP division & responsible for finalization the tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008.
Q2. Please state in 'YES' or 'NO' whether ADRM/CKP being an FAA (First Appellate Authority) is competent to furnish the 1st reply about D&A action of any Gazetted Officers who worked in CKP division & responsible for finalization the tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008.
Q3. Sri Lalit Kumar Sahoo, Sr. DEE(OP)/CKP submitted counter-affidavit on 03/05/2023 to The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court which is mention (in detail) in point no. C of Brief History above. Please state in 'YES' or 'NO' whether the point no. 12 of counter-affidavit of WP(C) No. 5215 of 2022 submitted by railway on 03/05/2023 to Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court is correct.
Q4. In RTI replies the same designated person i.e., Sr. DEE(OP)/CKP was unable to furnish the RTI information sought for about any action taken under D&A against finalizing officers for tender notice no.Page 3 of 9
RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451or NOT as the whole case files under the custody of vigilance no relevant documents for the subject matter available in his office as per point no. D & E of Brief History mentioned above.
Please state in 'YES' or 'NO' whether the RTI replies furnished vide RTI No(s). SERLY/R/E/20/00347 & SERLY/R/E/23/01096 are correct.
Q5. Please state how many officials with detailed designations (other than the RTI Applicant) were taken under D&A as per the point no. 12 of counter-affidavit of WP(C) No. 5215 of 2022 submitted by railway on dated 03/05/2023 to The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court.
Q6. Please furnish all the copies of Charge-sheet memorandums (other than the RTI Applicant) by obliterating/shadowing the name those were taken under D&A action if the reply of Q3 is 'YES'.
Q7. Please furnish the punishment orders imposed against the tender finalizing officers by obliterating /shadowing the name(s) if D&A finalized after issuing Charge-sheet of above Q5.
Q8. Please state how many officials with detail designations (other than the RTI Applicant who was not a TC member) put under 'SECRET/AGREED LIST' for false credential submission in connection with Tender notice no. RSO/CKP/Running Room/DPS/451, Dated: 20/02/2008."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.03.2024 stating as under:
"1. to 7. Does not come under the purview of PIO/VIGILANCE/SER/GRC
8. In IRVM 2018 at Chapter III Para 322.14 it has clearly been stated that "The extant instructions arbitrate that the Agreed List should be kept strictly confidential." Information related to Secret/Agreed Lists is confidential in nature as per CIC decision in File no. CIC/SS/A/2013/001040-YA dated 10.07.2014 wherein it has been clearly pointed out that "The agreed list is prepared after examination with the Directorate in consultation with the third party involved, i.e., CBI. It is observed that the Agreed Lists are confidential documents and as per Sections 8(1) (h)&(j) of RTI Act, 2005, the said information pertaining to Agreed List cannot be disclosed to public."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, held as under.
Page 4 of 9"Your appeal dt. 19.03.2024 has been considered carefully. It is observed that initial online RTI request of dt. 22.02.2024 has been replied online by CPIO & Vigilance Officer (Accounts) GRC on 19.03.2024.
Information provided in initial request stands good.
Further, Your RTI request queries in Q1 to Q7 cannot be entertained in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 that states "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. Hence, the said information cannot be provided as the petitioner's right exceeds the proviso of section 2() of RTI Act 2005 which envisage that if an applicant attempts to elicit answer to questions with prefixes such as why, what, when, which, whether, then the same is liable to be denied. Ref: (1) Dr. D.V. Rao - vs - APIO & Deputy Secretary (A) vs - Deptt of Legal Affairs, New Delhi CIC's File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 2lst April, 2006 Ref: (2) Decision dated 03.04.2008 of Dr. Celsa Pinto - Vs - Goa State Commission in WP No.419 of 2007 of the High Court, Bombay DoPTs O.M.No.1/7/2009-IR dated 20-05-201 1. Thus the appeal dt:
19.03.2024 is disposed of.
The provision of section 10 of RTI Act 2005 for your query in Q8 cannot be invoked in this case as the same is not applicable because does not exempt complete disclosure of information but part disclosure if found to be reasonable. Provided reply to your RTI appeal no. 'l' above is also applicable for your Q8 and cannot be entertained in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Moreover, you being the third party provisions in IRVM 2018 at Chapter III Para 322.14 and CIC decision in File no. CIC/SS/A/2013/001040-YA dated 10.07.2014 as If you are not satisfied with the disposal of this 1st appeal, you may file 2nd appeal to Hon'ble CIC New Delhi within 90 days from the date on which the First Appellate Authority decision was actually received by the appellant. (Anil Kumar Dubey) Addl. General Manager & First Appellate Authority mentioned by PIO/VIG/SER/GRC' reply against your request stands good.
Thus the appeal dt: 19.03.2024 is disposed of."
Page 5 of 94. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Swapan Kumar Bhunia, PIO-cum-Vigilance Officer, attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking clarification, which is beyond the ambit of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act and accordingly, a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 19.03.2024 and 27.03.2024. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 26.05.2025.
7. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 19.05.2025 and the same has been taken on record.
8. A written submission has been received from Shri Swapan Kumar Bhunia, PIO-cum-Vigilance Officer, vide letter dated 26.05.2025, a copy of which has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. The remarks furnished by FAA in this regard that still holds good and the same is reproduced below: "Your appeal dt. 19.03.2024 has been considered carefully. It is observed that initial online RTI request of dt. 22.02.2024 has been replied online by CPIO & Vigilance Officer (Accounts) GRC on 19.03.2024. Information provided in initial request stands good. Further, your RTI request queries in Q1 to Q7 cannot be entertained in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 that states "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. Hence, the said information cannot be provided as the petitioner's right exceeds the proviso of section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 Page 6 of 9 which envisage that if an applicant attempts to elicit answer to questions with prefixes such as why, what, when, which, whether, then the same is liable to be denied.
Ref: (1) Dr. D.V. Rao VS APIO & Deputy Secretary (A) -vs-Deptt. of Legal Affairs, New Delhi CIC's File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21st April, 2006 Ref: (2) Decision dated 03.04.2008 of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs Goa State Commission in WP No.419 of 2007 of the High Court, Bombay DoPT's Ο.Μ.Νο.1/7/2009-IR dated 20-05-2011.
The provision of section 10 of RTI Act 2005 for your query in Q8 cannot be invoked in this case as the same is not applicable because it does not exempt complete disclosure of information but part disclosure if found to be reasonable. Provided, reply to your RTI request no. '1' to '7' above is also applicable for your RTI request no. '8' and cannot be entertained in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 and DOPT'S Office Memorandum no. 11/2/2013- IR(Pt.) dated 14.08.2013. Moreover, you being the third-party, provisions in IRVM 2018 at Chapter III Para 322.14 and CIC decision in File no. CIC/SS/A/2013/001040-YA dated 10.07.2014 as mentioned by PIO/VIG/SER/GRC's reply against your request stands good."
2. Complied vide srl.no. 1.
3. No information sought under RTI Act 2005. It is also added that as per DOPT's Office Memorandum no. 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14.08.2013 clearly states that "complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005." The information denied to RTI appellant, which is relating to personal matters pertaining to 3rd party (i.e. information regarding details Major/Minor penalty Actions initiated or punishment imposed against other officials), qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act 2025 and the appellant has not been able to convince the FAA that disclosure thereof is in larger public interest.
However, in the light of the above Hon'ble CIC may pass the order as deemed fit."
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that suitable replies in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letters 19.03.2024 and Page 7 of 9 27.03.2024. It has been buttressed with the written submission by the Respondent as noted above. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant cases.
10. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from the perusal of records that 45 Second Appeals/ Complaint cases of the Appellant against the same Public Authority had already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that a total number of 14 Appeal cases are listed for today's hearing and all these RTI Applications and Appeals/Complaints are based on his myriad grievances emanating from his service. It was also opined that by way of filling these many RTI Applications seeking all and sundry information, the Appellant is causing harassment to the public authority as well as wasting the time and resources of the Commission. Having adjudicated upon the number of such cases till date as well as from the nature of queries in the instant cases, the Commission observes that Appellant projects a rather unhealthy approach in inundating Ministry of Railways with so many RTI Applications, ostensibly to pressurize the public authority into settling his grievances emanating from his service. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of the RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022, wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide. The averments and allegations made in the Page 8 of 9 writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022."
11. In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Complainant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, South Eastern Railway, Vigilance Branch-HQ, 11, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata - 700043 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)