Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

:

1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 11.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"Please refer Case Study (Traffic III) in MARYADA 2023 published by Vigilance Organization of South Eastern Railway (copy enclosed). In this regard I sought for the following 7 information under RTI Act 2005.
Page 1 of 6
Q1. Please state whether any railway official(s) were interrogated/questioned by SER vigilance or NOT. Q2. Please furnish the numbers of railway officials, if the reply of Q1 is YES.
"1. to 7. May please refer to the "Disclaimer" at the last page no. 44 wherein it is categorically mentioned, "The booklet is only indicative and is by no means exhaustive. Nor are they intended to be a substitute for rules, procedure and existing instructions/guidelines. The conclusion and lessons drawn from the case studies and articles herein do not in any way supersede the rules and procedures contained in any of the Railway Codes, Manuals and other relevant policy circulars.

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:

"It is reiterated that Case studies mentioned in the "Maryada" booklet are only indicative and theoretical meant for creating awareness among Railwaymen about wrong practices being adopted by the errant officials. It is not meant for identifying any individual employee or actual case registered against them. Hence, information asked by the RTI applicant could not be replied since it is hypothetical.

The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.

Moreover, RTI applicant desired information regarding details of DAR/punitive actions initiated against certain employees mentioned in the case studies which is exempted as per 8.1(j). Indian Railway Vigilance Manual 2018 Chapter VIII Para 828.1.c. clearly delineates, "Delhi High Court's decision in LPA No.618/2012 dated 06.11.12 in the matter of disclosure of information under the provision of RTI Act, relating to disciplinary cases has observed that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to carry public-activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Section 8(1)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought. CVC vide their Circular No. 07/04.2014 dated 04.04.2013 had circulated extracts of the above judgement to all Chief Vigilance Officers for making use of the same."