Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vipin Kumar Tyagi vs Central Vigilance Commission on 23 February, 2026

                                      केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 +
                                      CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/621916 +
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No.         CIC/CVCOM/C/2025/613896

Vipin Kumar Tyagi                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                                             ...निकायतकताग /Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
CPIO: Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi                                         ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeals/complaint:

 Sl.      Second    Date of RTI Date of                 Date of     Date of     Date of
 No.      Appeal /  Application CPIO's                  First       FAA's       Second
          Complaint             Reply                   Appeal      Order       Appeal /
          No.                                                                   Complaint

     1.   622137       28.02.2025        25.03.2025 10.04.2025 06.05.2025 16.05.2025
                                         &
                                         09.05.2025

     2.   621916       28.02.2025        25.03.2025 10.04.2025 06.05.2025 15.05.2025
                                         &
                                         09.05.2025

     3.   613896       30.12.2023        19.01.2024 22.01.2024 12.02.2024 21.03.2025


The instant set of appeals/complaints have been clubbed for decision as these relate
to the same subject matter.

Date of Hearing: 28.01.2026
Date of Decision: 20.02.2026


CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 & Ors.                                                    Page 1 of 13
                                           CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137

1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ This Information is being sought in reference to the complaint 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 11.10.2022 made by myself against financial irregularities, misconduct and corruption against NMDC officials along with credible evidence and the complaint being forwarded by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to Shri B. Vishwanath, CVO, NMDC Ltd. This information pertains to Construction of reinforced soil wall for the project named as "Construction of Road Over Bridge and Foot Over Bridge and other allied works in connection with the construction of Private Railways Siding for proposed 3 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant for NMDC Limited at Nagarnar Chhattisgarh State - Package IIR Schedule B and C"" herein called as an NMDC project for brevity. In reference to complaint no. 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 11.10.2022 and in reply to RTI application no. CVCOM/R/E/23/00804, the CPIO has replied to query no. c vide letter no. 023/Misc/008/RTI/13986 dated 20.12.2023 which is being quoted in verbatim as follows:

"Para - c: Investigation has been completed and Investigation Report was submitted back to the Commission vide CVO, NMDC's letter dated 04.03.2022. Further, information sought by the Commission was also provided by the CVO vide his letter dated 17.08.2023. The report provided complete details of the case including lapses on the part of the officials."

In this reference, I would like to have following information:

1. Kindly provide facilitation for inspection of vigilance complaint 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 11.10.2022 filed by me including CVC references.

2. Kindly provide certified copy of documents related to complaint as mentioned under point (1) at the time of inspection.

3. Kindly provide facilitation for inspection of register by DGIT Vigilance office pertaining to my complaint referred under point (1).

4. Kindly provide all file noting related to my complaint referred under point (1).

5. Kindly provide the result of enquiries conducted on the complaint referred under point (1).

6. Kindly provide details about the lapses committed by the accused officers along details of accused officers (Name & Designation) and corrective actions taken against them in accordance with Section 4(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. Kindly provide the certified copy of the enquiry report of the enquiries conducted on the complaint referred under point (1), if no action was taken against the accused officers.

The requisite charges for providing certified copy of the information shall be paid by the applicant online on RTI website after intimation."

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.03.2025 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"This Public Authority finds that the information sought with regard to Complaint No. 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 04.10.2022 has already been provided to you and information cannot be provided on RTI applications seeking similar information through repeated RTI applications as upheld by Central Information CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 & Ors. Page 3 of 13 Commission (CIC) in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC in case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326."

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.05.2025 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application.

1.3. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under: -

"Para 1, 2 & 4: This Public Authority finds that the information sought relates to information against third party. Any information relating to vigilance enquiry / disciplinary proceedings against a third person is to be considered as personal information and is exempt from disclosure under the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Para 3: Does not pertain to this Public Authority, as such this para of your online RTI application is being transferred to Office of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, CPIO/DCIT (HQRS-Vigilance), Room No.337-A, Central Revenues Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110 002, for appropriate action in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

Para 5, 6 & 7: The issues on which information have been asked primarily concerns NMDC. As such, a copy of your online RTI application No. CVCOM/R/E/25/00227 dated 28.02.2025, seeking information under the RTI Act, is being transferred to Smt. G Priyadarshini, Chief General Manager (Personnel & Administration) & CPIO, Khanij Bhavan, 10-3-311/A, Masab Tank, Castel Hills, NMDC Limited, Hyderabad - 500028 (Telangana), for appropriate action in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act."

1.4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.05.2025.

Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/621916

2. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ This Information is being sought in reference to the complaint no. 207713/2022/Vigilance-1 dated 04.10.2022 made by myself against financial irregularities, misconduct and corruption against IRCON officials alongwith credible evidence and the complaint being forwarded by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to Shri B. Vishwanath, CVO, NMDC Ltd. for necessary action on 01.11.2022. CPIO, NMDC has provided a false and misleading reply in his written statement to CIC in second Appeal vide no. CIC/CVCCOM/A/2024/614648 (copy of order already shared by CIC to you) that this complaint is same as my other complaint no. 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 11.10.2022 2 and investigation report is same for both complaints and is already available with you. Thus, I have been compelled to file this RTI application to clarify the truth behind these false statements made before the Hon'ble Commission.

This information pertains to Construction of reinforced soil wall for the project named as "Construction of Road Over Bridge and Foot Over Bridge and other allied works in connection with the construction of Private Railways Siding for proposed 3 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant for NMDC Limited at Nagarnar Chhattisgarh State - Package IIR Schedule B and C'' herein called as an NMDC project for brevity.

In reference to complaint no. 207713/2022/Vigilance-1 dated 04.10.2022 and in reply to RTI application no. CVCOM/R/E/23/00805 dated 15.12.2023, the CPIO CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 & Ors. Page 5 of 13 has replied to query no. a & b vide letter no. 023/Misc/008/RTI/13987 dated 20.12.2023 which is being quoted in verbatim as follows:

"Para -a & b: The complaint no. 207713/2022/Vigilance-1 dated 04.10.2022 was electronically sent to CVO, NMDC Ltd. for necessary action on 01.11.2022. The status of complaint is available online on the Complaint Management System at https://oldportal.cvc.gov.in and can be accessed entering the complaint number in the search box."

Now. CPIO NMDC has admitted in concurrence with CPIO, CVC before the Hon'ble CIC in 2nd Appeal no. CIC/CVCCOM/A/2024/614648 that investigation report for this complaint is same as that for other complaint no. 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 11.10.2022 and is already available with your organization.

In this reference, I would like to have following information:

1. Kindly provide facilitation for inspection of vigilance complaint 207713/2022/Vigilance-1 dated 04.10.2022 filed by me including CVC references.

2. Kindly provide certified copy of documents related to complaint as mentioned under point (1) at the time of inspection.

3. Kindly provide facilitation for inspection of register by DGIT Vigilance office pertaining to my complaint referred under point (1).

4. Kindly provide all file noting related to my complaint referred under point (1).

5. Kindly provide the result of enquiries conducted on the complaint referred under point (1).

6. Kindly provide details about the lapses committed by the accused officers along with details of accused officers (Name & Designation) and corrective actions taken against them in accordance with Section 4(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. Kindly provide the certified copy of the enquiry report of the enquiries conducted on the complaint referred under point (1), if no action was taken against the accused officers.

The requisite charges for providing certified copy of the information shall be paid by the applicant online on RTI website after intimation." 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.03.2025 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"This Public Authority finds that the information sought with regard to Complaint No. 207713/2022/Vigilance-1 dated 04.10.2022 has already been provided to you and information cannot be provided on RTI applications seeking similar information through repeated RTI applications as upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC in case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326."

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.05.2025 directed the CPIO to reconsider the RTI application.

2.3. In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.05.2025 and the same is reproduced as under: -

"Paras 1 & 2: Complaint dated 04.10.2022 was received through online and was registered as complaint no. 207713/2022/vigilance-6. The complaint was electronically sent to CVO, NMDC Ltd. For necessary action on 01.11.2022. The status of complaint is available online on the Complaint Management System at https://oldportal.cvc.gov.in and can be accessed by entering the complaint number in the search box. As such the inspection of vigilance complaints and providing certified copy of documents on the same is not applicable.

Paras 3 to 7: As per the Complaint Handling Policy, the Commission expects the CVO to scrutinize the complaint sent for necessary action and decide action on such complaints as deemed fit. As such, a copy of your online RTI application No. CVCOM/R/E/25/00228 dated 28.02.2025, seeking information under the RTI Act, is being transferred to Smt. G Priyadarshini, Chief General Manager (Personnel & Administration) & CPIO, Khanij Bhavan, 10-3-311/A, Masab Tank, Castel Hills, NMDC Limited, Hyderabad - 500028 (Telangana), for appropriate action in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act."

2.4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.05.2025.

Complaint No. CIC/CVCOM/C/2025/613896

3. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

➢ This Information is being sought in reference to the complaints forwarded by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to Shri B. Vishwanath, CVO, NMDC Ltd. This information pertains to Construction of reinforced soil wall for the project named as "Construction of Road Over Bridge and Foot Over Bridge and other allied works in connection with the construction of Private Railways Siding for proposed 3 MTPA Integrated Steel Plant for NMDC Limited at Nagarnar Chhattisgarh State - Package IIR Schedule B and C"" herein called as an NMDC project for brevity.

In reference to complaint no. 208312/2022/Vigilance-6 dated 11.10.2022 and in reply to RTI application no. CVCOM/R/E/23/00804, the CPIO has replied to query no. c vide letter no. 023/Misc/008/RTI/13986 dated 20.12.2023 which is being quoted in verbatim as follows:

"Para - c: Investigation has been completed and Investigation Report was submitted back to the Commission vide CVO, NMDC's letter dated 04.03.2022. Further, information sought by the Commission was also provided by the CVO vide his letter dated 17.08.2023. The report provided complete details of the case including lapses on the part of the officials."

In this reference, I would like to have following information:

1. Kindly provide certified copy of investigation report referred above sent by CVO, NMDC along with letter dated 04.03.2022 and letter dated 17.08.2023 to CVC. 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"The information sought is confidentially held and comes within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the investigation report is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Ac,2005."

3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 21.03.2025.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

4. The appellant/Complainant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) and on behalf of the respondent Manendu, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.

5. The appellant inter alia submitted that the replies given by the CPIO in all three cases were inadequate and unsatisfactory. He argued that the information was available under the custody of the respondent, however, the CPIO had deliberately denied the same.

Further, he contended that the CPIO transferred the complaint referred to in CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/621916 without any reasonable justification. Moreover, the information about action taken at their end on any of his complaints referred to in the three cases had not been provided to him, so far.

6. The respondent while defending their case submitted that the Appellant had majorly framed his RTI requests comprising of vague and ambiguous statements, apart from seeking action taken information on his multiple complaints. The complaints filed by the appellant pertained to NDMC, hence, the same were forwarded to CVO, NDMC, for necessary action. Further, the appellant had filed another second appeal CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/614648 concerning similar complaints concerning NDMC and the said appeal was dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 10.02.2025.

In CIC/CVCOM/C/2025/613896, the CPIO explained that both the complaints (also referred to in the appeals) were clubbed and examined together, however, no element of vigilance was established in the matters. Further, the outcome in the said complaints was informed to the appellant. Moreover, the corresponding second appeal CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/614635 arising out of the same RTI application dated 30.12.2023 has been dismissed by the Commission vide order dated 30.01.2025.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that respondent furnished replies in all three cases, and has reiterated the same in their oral pleadings.

In CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137, it is noted that the Appellant has relied upon the Bombay High Court's judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. Public Information Officer & Registrar & Ors. However, having relied upon the aforementioned judgment, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any larger public interest warranting disclosure of third-party information. Furthermore, the Apex Court has clearly laid down the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 & Ors. Page 10 of 13 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 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 following was observed:

"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, 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..."

In view of the above, no scope of relief lies in the matter [CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137].

7.1. In CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/621916, the appellant contended that the complaints referred to in his appeal(s) are different although the same were clubbed and closed by the respondent considering similar subject-matter. Nonetheless, the correctness of the decision taken by the respondent on the complaints, is not the issue for consideration before the Commission and the same cannot be examined under the RTI Act. In that regard, the Commission would like to refer to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023] extracted as under:

"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."

Keeping in view the above, no scope of relief lies in the matter [CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/621916].

7.2. In CIC/CVCOM/C/2025/613896, identical issue as raised in the complaint case has attained finality through Commission's earlier order passed in CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/614635 (order dated 30.01.2025). In view of the above and the status in the averred complaints referred to in the cases having been duly informed to the appellant, the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed and the complaint is rejected.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 20.02.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 & Ors. Page 12 of 13 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110023

2. Vipin Kumar Tyagi CIC/CVCOM/A/2025/622137 & Ors. Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)