Central Information Commission
Nayana Jena vs Centre For Railway Information System ... on 25 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CFRIS/A/2024/103599
NAYANA JENA .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Principal Chief
Security Commissioner, East
Coast Railway, Rail Sadan,
Chandrashekharpur, Bhubaneswar - 751017 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.07.2025
Date of Decision : 25.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"Provide the details of enquiry in connection with complaint against Sri Mukesh Kumar ASC RPF SBP by Smt. Nayana Jena office superintendent of Sr. Divisional Security Commissioner Office Sambalpur which was held on 7/8/9.09.2022 at RCF Kapurthala Room No- 105 and the statement Page 1 of 7 was recorded and the final enquiry report of RCF Kapurthala, which was conducted by Sr. Security Commander Smt. Kamaljot Brar."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2023 stating as under:
"The information sought under your application cited above is exempted and denied on the following grounds.
As per Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act-2005, the information disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; has been exempted from disclosure under RTI Act.
Moreover, the enquiry report contains the names and statements of other persons being involved in the enquiry process. As it contains the personal information of third party and it could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party and no larger public interest has been disclosed, the enquiry report which is confidential in nature cannot be disclosed/provided to you under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.01.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Bhawani Shankar Nath, Chief Security Commissioner/RFP, appeared through video conference.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that she sought information regarding an enquiry conducted in connection with a complaint against Shri Mukesh Kumar, ASC/RPF/Sambalpur, held on 07, 08, and 09 September 2022 at RCF, Kapurthala. The enquiry was conducted by Smt. Kamaljot Brar, Sr. DSC/RPF/Kapurthala. She contended that neither the PIO, nor the FAA provided information to her. She further submitted that the said inquiry report finds mentioned only in a charge-sheet served to her on 15.01.2024 and that is when she came to know of its existence.
6. Furthermore, she stated that two individuals namely Shri Utpal Bag and Shri P. Rahul, who were working as TMS at the Office of Sr. Page 2 of 7 DSC/RPF/Sambalpur and attended the said enquiry at Kapurthala, have submitted their statements during the course of a departmental enquiry conducted against her by Shri Sanjay, ASC/RPF/KUR, ECOR. These statements have been supplied to her, and in both statements, it has clearly been mentioned that Shri Mukesh Kumar, ASC/RPF/Sambalpur, frequently used vulgar and unparliamentary language against RPF officers and staff. She pleaded that information sought was arbitrarily denied by the Respondent as disclosure of information sought would not endanger the life or physical safety of any person, nor does it reveal the identity of any confidential source, as claimed by the PIO. She contended that information sought was not personal information, especially when similar witness statements by others, including Shri B.D. Barik (IPF) and Shri S.C. Nanda, has also mentioned the same misconduct by Shri Mukesh Kumar. Therefore, the denial of information by the CPIO and FAA was wholly unjustified.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 11.02.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"Apropos above, the appellant Smt. Nayana Jena, W/o. Sri. Suresh Chandra Nanda vide her initial application No.00498 dt.19.10.2023 had sought the details of enquiry report in connection with her complaint against Sri Mukesh Kumar, ASC/RPF/SBP which was held on 7th, 8th and 9th September 2022 at RCF/Kapurthala by Smt. Kamaljot Brar, Sr. Security Commissioner.
Accordingly, the required information was denied by the PIO vide this office letter No.2023/ECOR/RPF/BBS/RTI/00498/45 dt.17.11.2023 as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act (exempts information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it contains the personal information of third party and it could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party and no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Moreover, the enquiry report was confidential in nature.Page 3 of 7
Further, the appellant Smt. Nayana Jena had filed her first appeal to this office vide application No.01526 dt.14.12.2023 against the reply submitted by the PIO seeking the same information to the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the First Appellate Authority justified the reply submitted by the PIO and stated that no further intervention in this matter was required.
Now, in the 2nd Appeal to the Hon'ble CIC, Smt. Nayana Jena has mentioned all her personal grievances which do not come under the purview of RTI Act. RTI is not the appropriate platform to resolve personal grievances.
Moreover, in context to the enquiry report submitted by Smt. Kamaljot Brar, Sr. Security Commissioner/RCF/Kapurthala, it is to mention that the said report was not appropriate as it was not constituted as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India towards harassment of women at workplace (Vishaka Guidelines). The said enquiry report was also received confidentially from Smt. Kamaljot Brar that contained the personal information of third party as witness, and it could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party and no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Later, an Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) was constituted as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whose findings had been communicated confidentially to the concerned authority by the committee which also contained personal information of third party as witness. Disclosure of the enquiry report to the appellant is a threat to personal safety and security as well as invasion of privacy of third party. Moreover, the enquiry report is confidential in nature that cannot be disclosed. Appropriate disciplinary action against Smt. Nayana Jena has already been taken by the competent authority based on the report submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC). Further, the appellant has already moved to the court for Justice, awaiting court's order. In earlier decisions of the Hon'ble CIC in numerous cases, the CIC has upheld the disclosure of Information containing 3rd party personal Information and confidential reports under section 8(1)(g) and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, respectively.
Since, this office has already replied appropriately to the initial RTI application and the first appeal application of Smt. Nayana Jena on time under the purview of RTI Act, the Hon'ble CIC is prayed for disposal of the case, please."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the Page 4 of 7 Appellant sought enquiry report conducted by Smt. Kamaljot Brar, Sr. Security Commander, in relation to a complaint filed by her against Shri Mukesh Kumar, ASC/RPF/Sambalpur. The CPIO, vide communication dated 17.11.2023, denied the information under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission is of the considered opinion that the denial of the entire enquiry report is not justified. The enquiry report in question pertains to a formal departmental inquiry arising out of a complaint of alleged harassment against a Public Servant. Such reports, unless exempted under clear and specific provisions of the RTI Act, are part of the public record and do not automatically qualify as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The RTI applicant is the complainant in the matter, and therefore, has a direct and legitimate interest in knowing the outcome of the enquiry which was initiated on her complaint. In such cases, the Commission has consistently held that denial of the report in its entirety is contrary to the principles of transparency and natural justice.
9. The contention that the report was not constituted as per Vishaka Guidelines is irrelevant to the question of disclosure under the RTI Act. Even if the procedure adopted was informal or flawed, it does not convert a document concerning public officials' conduct into a private or confidential one.
10. The invocation of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act appears misplaced. No cogent reason or evidence was provided to substantiate how disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. Mere apprehension or vague assertions are insufficient to invoke such a serious exemption.
11. As regards Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, it is accepted that some parts of the report may contain personal information of witnesses or third parties, the RTI Act provides a clear remedy under Section 10, which allows severance or redaction of such information before disclosure. The CPIO has made no effort to apply Section 10 and instead opted for a blanket denial of information. The Commission notes that the public interest in transparency and accountability, especially in cases involving complaints of misconduct involving harassment by public servants in their official capacity, clearly outweighs any conceivable harm from limited disclosure after redaction. Further, the Appellant has stated Page 5 of 7 that the same or similar content from this enquiry is already part of her departmental proceedings, and some of it was disclosed to her. This further weakens the claim that the document is confidential or exempt in totality.
12. In light of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent to provided copy of the enquiry report to the Appellant, after applying due redaction under Section 10 of the RTI Act to mask any names, designations, or other identifying details of third parties/witnesses, if disclosure of such details may constitute unwarranted invasion of privacy. The Respondent shall ensure that only the information necessary to protect third-party privacy is redacted, and the rest of the report is provided in full, so as not to frustrate the purpose of the RTI application. If any part is still withheld, the CPIO must provide what has been redacted/removed/severed with a reasoned and speaking order citing the precise exemption clause and explaining how harm from disclosure outweighs the public interest or the Appellant's rights to defend herself in the disciplinary proceeding against her. The above directions are to be complied with by the Respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
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 Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA Office of the principal Chief Security Commissioner, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrashekharpur, 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)