Central Information Commission
Sopna Rani vs East Coast Railway (Bhubaneswar) on 12 September, 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/2024/637668
Sopna Rani .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Principal Chief
Engineer, East Coast Railway
Hqr, Rail Sadan, C.S. Pur,
Bhubaneswar - 751017 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025
Date of Decision : 12.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
(Total number of 08 Second Appeals of the Appellant are listed today for
hearing before the Commission)
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.06.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 21.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.08.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 7
"1. Kindly provide the name of Dy. CE/TM/BBS stationed on 07.06.2024 at Bhubaneswar ECOR Hqr. who endorsed the letter No W.7/637/TM/CPGRAM/SRP/3463 dt 07.06.2024 as the officer did not know the standard official procedure to include the name along with designation.
2. Kindly provide the monthly remuneration received by Dy. CE/TM/BBS referred to in S1 No 1 above, for the period spanning January to May 2024, in accordance with Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Kindly provide the details of official tours undertaken by the Dy. CE/TM/BBS mentioned in point 1, on behalf of the East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, during the months of January to May 2024.
4. Please provide the number of grievances received through the CPGRAM Portal by the East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, which were addressed by the Dy.CE/TM/BBS mentioned in point 1, for the months of January to May 2024.
5. Kindly provide the numbers of grievances received through CPGRAM Portal by ECOR, Bhubaneswar related to policy matters like injustice to HRA cases, corruption related cases involving employees under TM section which were addressed by Dy. CE/TM/BBS of S1 No 1 above for the period of 1st January to 12th June 2024.
6. Kindly provide the duty place of posting of the Dy. CE/TM/BBS of S1 No 1, during major train accident at Bahanaga Bazar rail station, Balasore district of Odisha in 2023.
7. Kindly provide the numbers of pending cases of sexual harassment of women at workplace involving the Dy. CE/TM/BBS of S1 No 1 above over the last seven years. (It can not be denied as per section 8(1) (j)of RTI Act 2005, which stipulates that information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person, the citizen of India knows the number of criminal cases pending against the MPs and MLAs of India, so in the instant case the information may not be denied to me as it also at larger public interest.
8. Kindly provide the nature of duties and any additional responsibilities assigned to Dy. CE/TM/BBS of Sl No 1 above, since their posting at the Bhubaneswar Headquarters.Page 2 of 7
9. Kindly provide the total amount of bills inclusive of both contractor and supplier bills, processed or reviewed by the Dy. CE/TM/BBS mentioned in point 1, during the last financial year."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.07.2024 stating as under:
"In regard to above, the information pertaining to Headquarters Engineering Department. East Coast Railway/Bhubaneswar as sought is enclosed herewith for your information please.
Though adequate care has been taken to furnish the relevant information to you, in case you feel any information is missing or is not furnished, you may kindly bring the same to the notice of the undersigned for further clarification. In case you want any fresh information in this case which was not asked for in the original application, you might ask for the same by submitting a fresh application along with the required fee. In case you are still not satisfied with the information furnished, you may prefer an appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Bridge Engineer, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-17 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of this letter under section 19 of RTI Act'2005.
An appeal should be addressed to the Appellate Authority containing name and address of the Appellant particulars of the orders against which the appeal is made, brief facts leading to the appeal, prayer or relief sought, grounds for the prayer or relief and verification by the appellant. For submission of the Appeal no fee is required to be paid."
3. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 19.07.2024 stating as under:
"1,2,3,6,8 & 9) The information sought are rejected under RTI Act-2005 section 8 (1) (j) as the information relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and this would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
4) 8
5) No such classification of documents is being maintained in this office.Page 3 of 7
7) NIL"
4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 21.08.2024, held as under:
"1,2,3,6,8 & 9) The information sought are rejected under RTI Act-2005 section 8(1) (j) as the information relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and this would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
5) No such classification of documents is being maintained in this office."
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Sankar Prasad, representative of the Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rajinder Patel, Dy. Chief Engineer & PIO present through Video-Conference.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that information on point Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the RTI application has not been provided to the Appellant.
8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete factual position in the matter, as per the documents available on their record has been informed to the Appellant.
9. The third-party is also present in the hearing along with the Respondent and he objected sharing his personal information with the Appellant and her representative. During the hearing, it revealed that the representative of the Appellant namely Shri Sankar Prasad had also been filing RTI applications and Second Appeals seeking similar information.
Page 4 of 7CIC website reveals that so far 20 numbers Second Appeals/Complaints have been disposed of by the Commission which were filed by Shri Sankar Prasad. The third party also informed that he was related to the representative of the Appellant being his co-brother (their wives being real sisters) till Shri Sankar Prasad's marriage resulted in divorce.
Decision:
10. During the hearing, the Respondent orally objected the appearance and identity of the representative of the Appellant i.e. Shri Sankar Prasad. However, in three Appeal bearing Nos. CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/637668; CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/641007 and CIC/ECRBH/A/2024/642277, the Respondent had filed written objection w.r.t the same. The Commission observes that the signatures of the Appellant are a 'copy-paste of scanned signature' on various documents. Further, the Appellant had typed her name as 'Sopna Rani' but signed as 'Swopna Rani'. There are no signatures of the Appellant in the written submissions filed by her. Further, the representative of the Appellant had not annexed his identity proof. On being confronted with these facts, the representative of the Appellant namely Shri Sankar Prasad firstly, showed aggression and then refused to cooperate and also refused to disassociate with the proceedings. Hence, assistance of the local police was sought in order to clear the doubts. Thereafter, the representative of the Appellant namely Shri Sankar Prasad began to cooperate and made a phone call to establish bona fides of the Appellant and also showed his identity card, a copy of which was taken for being uploaded in the e-book along with the attendance. Hearing resumed once the identity and bona fide was established.
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in her Second Appeal is aggrieved that complete information on point Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the RTI application has not been provided to her by the Respondent.
12. With respect to point Nos. 1, 8 and 9 of the RTI application, the Commission observes that this is yet another case where the queries in the RTI Application has been complicated in a manner that it cannot be easily understood and any response in an attempt to sincerely provide information can be construed by the Appellant as an admission of their fault. Accordingly, the Respondent framed their responses to avoid answering a trick question.
Page 5 of 713. In this regard, the Commission at the outset would like to invite the attention of the parties towards a decision passed by this bench on 24.01.2024 in a case of Nandkishor Gupta vs. North Western Railway, bearing File No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/600344 & anr. regarding the misuse of the RTI Act by the Appellant, with the following observations :
"...The Appellant has framed RTI questions in a manner to trick the Respondent Public Authority into admitting, without due inquiry, allegations of having wrongfully favoured a few other employees vis-à-vis the Appellant. Obviously, the CPIO reply stated 'no such information/ document exists'. Then, the Appellant is aggrieved because the information sought by him has not been given to him. His shenanigan needs to be dwelled upon to bring clarity regarding responsibility of applicant seeking information under RTI Act.
During the hearing, Appellant attempted to reframe his request into supplying list of recently promoted employees and the financial benefits granted to them. It may not be out of place to mention that the Appellant cannot reframe or rephrase his queries at the Appellate stage.
It is noted that the Appellant is a serving government employee under the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, while taking recourse to the RTI Act for his service-related matters, the Appellant is expected to approach the Public Authorities with clean hands. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy.
The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.Page 6 of 7
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated. The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter..."
14. With respect to point No. 2 of the RTI application, the Respondent should have furnished to the Appellant pay-scale in which the Dy. CE/TM/BBS are generally placed, as disclosure of such data cannot be treated as an exempted information under the RTI Act. Therefore, the Respondent is directed to give pay-scale to the Appellant as sought on point No. 2 of the RTI application, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
15. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
16. With respect to other points of the RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO.
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, Office of the Principal Chief Engineer, East Coast Railway Hqr, Rail Sadan, C.S. Pur, Bhubaneswar - 751017 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)