Central Information Commission
Sopna Rani vs East Coast Railway (Bhubaneswar) on 11 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/2024/615124
Sopna Rani .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
East Coast Railway, Khurda
Road Division, Jatni, Dist- Khurda ,
Odisha - 752050 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025
Date of Decision : 09.09.2025
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 : 26.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 21.02.2024
First appeal filed on : 27.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide certified copy of all the papers related to enquiry of Disproportionate of Assets (DA) case of SSE/TM Sh. S.R Panda.Page 1 of 6
The information should be provided as it pertaining to the allegations of corruption and even in some organisation under section 24 of RTI Act, it is not excluded under sub-section 24(1)
2. Kindly provide the certified copies of (letter) punishment imposed by Divisional Railway Manager (Engg), ECOR, Khurda Road division to SSE/TM of that division from 01/12/2023 to 25/01/2024 after conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
3. Kindly provide the details of bills prepared by S.R Panda ( SSE/TM) in the month of January 2024."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 21.02.2024 stating as under:
"1 to 3 Information sought for is personal in nature, hence cannot be provided to a third party under section 8(1) (j) of RTI ACT-2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.04.2024, held as under:
"In reference to your 1st appeal, it is to inform you that the Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005, the undersigned has gone through your aforesaid appeal along with its relevant case file & as desired, the letter of DRM(Engg) to CPIO /KUR dtd. 19.02.2024 (copy) is enclosed. आपक पहल अपील के संदभ म, आपको सू चत कया जाता है क आरट आई अ ध नयम 2005 के तहत अपील य "ा धकार , अधोह#ता$र ने आपक उपरो&त अपील को उसक "ासं गक केस फ़ाइल के साथ पढ़ा है और इ-छानुसार, सीपीआईओ केयआ ू र को डीआरएम (इंजी नय3रंग) का प4 5लखा है । dtd.
19.02.2024 (" त5ल8प) संल9न है ।
This disposes of the aforesaid appeal.
इससे उपरो&त अपील का न#तारण होता है "
Letter dated 19.02.2024:
"(1) It is a departmental inquiry which is confidential in nature and as per RTI Act-2005, Para 8(1)(g), the information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source Page 2 of 6 of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement security purpose shall not be disclosed. or (2) Letter of punishment are confidential in nature.
However. No record of punishment imposed by DRM(Engg) to division to SSE/TM of that Division from 01.12.2023 to 25.01.2024.
(3) S R.Panda (SSE/TM) has not prepared any bills in the month of January 2024
4. 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 RNA Parida, Sr. DPO & CPIO present through Video- Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 10.04.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent had wrongly denied the information to the Appellant.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 21.02.2024, they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO. 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 Page 3 of 6 applications and Second Appeals seeking similar information. CIC 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:
8. 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.
9. 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 the Respondent has wrongly denied the information as per her RTI application. On the other hand, the PIO in his response has categorically informed that the information sought by him is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Page 4 of 6 Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third- party information.
10. The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
11. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, Page 5 of 6 professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
12. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply given and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
13. No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
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, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, Jatni, Dist- Khurda, Odisha - 752050 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)