{"id":40467,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-16T10:13:50","modified_gmt":"2015-07-16T04:43:50","slug":"shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                  Central Information Commission\n                                                                  CIC\/AD\/C\/2009\/001502\n                                                                   Dated January 20, 2010\n\n\nName of the Applicant                      :   Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen\n\nName of the Public Authority               :   Western Railway, Mumbai\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The applicant filed an RTI application dt.12.7.09 with the Sr.PIO &amp; DGM(G), WR,<br \/>\n      Mumbai seeking copies of all the notings and correspondence pages of the vigilance<br \/>\n      file No.E\/161\/2004\/05\/078\/D\/ 3\/N pertaining to the vigilance case against him. The<br \/>\n      Dy.CVO &amp; PIO replied on 5.6.09 denying the information as per section 8(1)(h) of RTI<br \/>\n      Act as the case was still under DAR proceedings.(Copy not in file) Not satisfied with<br \/>\n      the reply, the applicant filed an appeal dt.12.8.09 with the Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      reiterating his request for the information. Shri R.S.Chugh, Appellate Authority replied<br \/>\n      on 16.9.09 upholding the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the<br \/>\n      applicant filed a second appeal with the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing<br \/>\n      for January 20, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Shri G.D.Joshi, Sr.Vig. Officer represented the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    Efforts were made to contact the appellant over the phone but contact could not be<br \/>\n      established. However, the applicant arrived later and was able to present his case<br \/>\n      before the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>5.    The Commission received a rejoinder dt.19.1.10 from Shri Mahavir Singh, PIO<br \/>\n      (Vigilance) in which he stated that Shri D.K.Sen, appellant who was working as<br \/>\n      Radiographer at Ratlam Divisional hospital, Western Railway was trapped by<br \/>\n      Western Railway Vigilance team for demanding and accepting Rs.1500\/- as<br \/>\n      illegal gratification from the proprietor of the firm. He was subsequently suspended<br \/>\n      and major penalty DAR action was initiated against him as per DAR rules by the<br \/>\n      competent authority. The applicant vide his RTI application has sought copies of all<br \/>\n      the notings and correspondence pages of vigilance file related to this case.       Shri<br \/>\n      Mahavir Singh stated the following in support of his denial of information:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>           &#8230;&#8230;..&#8221; investigations, checks and trap cases done by the vigilance and its working<br \/>\n           is very sensitive and confidentiality of the document has to be maintained. These<br \/>\n           include statement of various employees and outside persons, documents collected<br \/>\n during   the   investigation,    correspondences   and   decision   taken   by   various<br \/>\nauthorities, their views, investigation report of Vigilance Inspector which also<br \/>\nincludes name of the Inspector investigating the case etc. In short the vigilance<br \/>\nfile contains various confidential information and statements given by various<br \/>\npersons in anticipation of confidentiality\/secrecy to be maintained by the vigilance<br \/>\nbranch. If after investigation any DAR action is to be taken then all documents<br \/>\nrelated to the case are forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority for initiating the<br \/>\nDAR action, who takes the decision on the basis of material available with him. If<br \/>\nthe content and copy of vigilance file is made available through RTI, the<br \/>\ninformation about trap cases and vigilance checks, methodology adopted,<br \/>\ninformation about complainant, name of officials involved in the check, who<br \/>\nassisted with the vigilance etc. will become public and they will unnecessarily be<br \/>\nharassed for assisting the Vigilance in curbing the corruption. If their names are<br \/>\nmade public, the genuine complainants will hesitate to come forward who may<br \/>\notherwise wish to complain and give information, in anticipation of their<br \/>\nconfidentiality being maintained.        The disclosure of such information, may<br \/>\nendanger the safety of persons involved in the traps, checks and identify the<br \/>\nsource of information or assistance given in confidence for curbing the corruption.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Hence such information are exempted u\/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The information,<br \/>\nmay also be used by the culprits to influence the decision making authority, the<br \/>\ndisciplinary authority and other officials which may impede the prosecution of<br \/>\noffenders hence was denied u\/s 8(1)(h) in the subject case.         The vigilance files<br \/>\nhave many information and record or part thereof which has been supplied by the<br \/>\nthird party in anticipation of treating them as confidential because if the name of<br \/>\ncomplainant and nature of complaint made by him is made public then his<br \/>\nbusiness relation with Railway may get affected and he may be subjected to<br \/>\ndiscrimination by not only by the officials against whom he made the complaint or<br \/>\ngave statement but also other officials who may treat him as informer or<br \/>\ncomplainant to vigilance.       They will hesitate to complain and hesitate to assist<br \/>\nvigilance in curbing the corruption.      Hence confidentiality should be maintained<br \/>\nand it should not be given without consent of party.       The Respondent explained<br \/>\nthat the information being sought from the vigilance file relates to the trap case<br \/>\nagainst the Appellant.    The relevant material required for DAR proceedings has<br \/>\nbeen supplied to the DA and the DA has made his opinion on the available record<br \/>\nwith him and all the copies of documents on the basis of which DAR proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated has also been supplied to the CO. So the applicant&#8217;s contention that the<br \/>\ncopy of Vigilance file required to defend his case, according to the Respondent, is<br \/>\nnot acceptable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.    The Respondent further added that the investigation was over and NIP was issued and<br \/>\n      the Appellant has been compulsorily retired from service. Moreover, the time period<br \/>\n      for filing an appeal with the competent authority has also expired and the Appellant<br \/>\n      has not opted for any appeal . He also added that the Appellant has recently filed a<br \/>\n      case in CAT, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    The Commission, however, in an attempt to get deeper insight into the matter<br \/>\n      requested for further explanation from the Respondents for not disclosing information<br \/>\n      under Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act while deciding that another hearing<br \/>\n      in this connection would be held to come to a decision. Accordingly, a notice was<br \/>\n      sent to both parties on 25.1.2010 informing them about the decision to hear them<br \/>\n      through video conferencing on 28.1.1010 at 10.30a.m. .\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Shri Mahaveer Singh, PIO(Vig.) &amp; Shri D.K.Chaudhary, Dy.CVO (Stores) representing<br \/>\n      the Public Authority and the applicant were present at NIC-Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>9.    The Commission, in response to the notice sent on 25.1.2010 received a letter dated<br \/>\n      27.1.10 from Shri Mahaveer Singh, PIO, Vigilance explaining the position of the<br \/>\n      Vigilance section. Excerpts from the letter are reproduced below:\n<\/p>\n<p>      i)     Vigilance file contains very sensitive and confidential information<br \/>\n      about persons associated in the check, planning, layout and methodology of<br \/>\n      executing   the   plan   etc.    It   will   lead   to   disclosure   of    secrecy    and<br \/>\n      confidentiality of methodology and planning of decoy checks to general<br \/>\n      public. All these sensitive information if disclosed will endanger the physical<br \/>\n      safety of the persons involved in decoy checks.          It will discourage officials to<br \/>\n      work effectively against corrupt officials. Hence it should be exempted from<br \/>\n      disclosure u\/s 8(1)(g).\n<\/p>\n<p>      ii)    If the content and copy of Vigilance file is made available through RTI,<br \/>\n      details about officials and person involved in the case will be disclosed. They<br \/>\n      will unnecessarily be harassed and subjected to discrimination by officials<br \/>\n      against whom they have given information or statements . The action of<br \/>\n      officials involved in investigation and assistance is given in anticipation of<br \/>\n      confidentiality\/secrecy to be maintained by the Vigilance branch. Hence such<br \/>\n      information is denied u\/s 8(1)(g).\n<\/p>\n<p>      iii)   As mentioned in RTI preamble:\n<\/p>\n<p>             &#8216;AND    WHEREAS      democracy        requires    an   informed     citizenry   and<br \/>\n      transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to<br \/>\n      contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities<br \/>\n      accountable to the governed&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Vigilance department work against corrupt practices in Railway and official<br \/>\n      involved in such practices.        Every information which directly or indirectly<br \/>\n      supports the corrupt officials and discourage the people who work for curbing<br \/>\n      the corruption should be denied straightaway. Vigilance file and information<br \/>\n      about persons involved in vigilance checks, complainants, witnesses etc.<br \/>\n      exactly fall under this category.           However, the end result of vigilance<br \/>\n      check\/cases may be made available to public to assess its outcome whenever<br \/>\n      required but minute detail of file and checks should not be disclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      vi)    Para 10(1) states that &#8216;&#8230;access may be provided to that part of the<br \/>\n      record which does not contain any information which is exempt from<br \/>\n      disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part<br \/>\n      that contains exempt information&#8217;.            This clause can not be exercised in<br \/>\n      vigilance investigation case because:\n<\/p>\n<p>      a)     Whole       investigation   is   interlinking   of   allegations   in   complaint,<br \/>\n      statements, facts and refers to various person or firm, witnesses etc. Hence<br \/>\n      to search and sever all such information from such interlinked documents is<br \/>\n      practically impossible.\n<\/p>\n<p>      b)     However, if it may be attempted to sever name, designation of person<br \/>\n      involved etc. but it will not serve any purpose. There are many ingredients<br \/>\n      left after severing name, designation, firm name etc. such as nature of<br \/>\n      complaint, language and content in the complaints, content of statement,<br \/>\n      designation of official investigating the case and have given their remark and<br \/>\n      their handwriting, date of document and hierarchy of dealing a file etc. All<br \/>\n      these information can be used to identify the source and persons involved<br \/>\n      and who have handled such confidential investigation. Hence the severability<br \/>\n      clause is not effective.\n<\/p>\n<p>      vii)   This   is    a   case   where DAR      proceeding initiated after vigilance<br \/>\n      departmental Test Check (Decoy). All information and documents related to<br \/>\n      DAR case have already been supplied to DA while initiating the DAR<br \/>\n      proceedings. Same was also supplied to CO(applicant in this case). Whole<br \/>\n      DAR case, enquiry etc. are based on these Relied Upon Documents. There is<br \/>\n      no logic or public interest served by disclosing the document which are not<br \/>\n      part of or relied during any action against the Charged Officer.               Other few<br \/>\n      documents which were not considered have already been supplied to the<br \/>\n      Appellant in other RTI application.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   The Commission, on careful consideration of the submission by the Respondents on<br \/>\n      record and after hearing them noted that this particular case is one of &#8216;trapping&#8217; an<br \/>\n      individual while accepting bribe and that a number of decoys have been used to<br \/>\n        ensure success of the operation and that the any disclosure of information related to<br \/>\n       the decoys who were involved and the methodology that the Vigilance Section uses<br \/>\n       while &#8216;trapping&#8217; is sensitive and confidential information. The Commission also noted<br \/>\n       from the contents of para 9 vi given hearinabove that using the severability clause<br \/>\n       in such cases is not practical or effective   as names, designations, activities, remarks<br \/>\n       are all interlinked and identifying parts exempt from disclosure is impossible.      The<br \/>\n       Commission also noted that the Appellant has filed a case in the CAT and that the case<br \/>\n       is ongoing and that all documents in relation to his DA&amp;R case have already been<br \/>\n       furnished to him except the vigilance files and that the same are not required        for<br \/>\n       defending his case in the CAT (para 9 vii).       In the light of these observations the<br \/>\n       Commission denies the information to the Appellant under Sections 8(1)(g) of the RTI<br \/>\n       Act and accordingly rejects the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                             (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                                     Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(G.Subramanian)<br \/>\nDeputy Registrar<\/p>\n<p>Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.     Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen<br \/>\n       H.No.202<br \/>\n       Prince Plaza<br \/>\n       Chhatripul<br \/>\n       Ratlam<\/p>\n<p>2.     Shri Mahavir Singh<br \/>\n       The PIO (vigilance) &amp;<br \/>\n       Dy.CVO(E)<br \/>\n       Western Railway<br \/>\n       Headquarter Office<br \/>\n       Churchgate<br \/>\n       Mumbai 20<\/p>\n<p>3.     The Appellate Authority<br \/>\n       Western Railway<br \/>\n       Headquarter Office<br \/>\n       Churchgate<br \/>\n       Mumbai 20<\/p>\n<p>4.     Officer incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.     Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/C\/2009\/001502 Dated January 20, 2010 Name of the Applicant : Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen Name of the Public Authority : Western Railway, Mumbai Background 1. The applicant filed an RTI application dt.12.7.09 with the Sr.PIO &amp; DGM(G), [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-16T04:43:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T04:43:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1826,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-16T04:43:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-16T04:43:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T04:43:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":1826,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010","name":"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-16T04:43:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-dinesh-kumar-sen-vs-western-railway-mumbai-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Dinesh Kumar Sen vs Western Railway, Mumbai on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}