Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 2 April, 2026
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622053
Praveen Kumar ... अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Sashastra Seema Bal,
New Delhi ...प्रनिवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.03.2025 FA : 29.03.2025 SA : 20.05.2025
CPIO : 27.03.2025 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision: 02.04.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2025, before the CPIO, Sashastra Seema Bal, seeking information as under:
"Kindly communicate me the action taken report/ Speaking order in connection with my representation dated 19.03.2022 related to the unprecedented promotion order in the history of the last 20 years of the SSB vide order No 11/02/2022/SSB//Pers-1(B)/3035- 3107 dated 18 Feb 2022 signed under hand Sunil Kumar Commandant (Pers-I)."
2. The CPIO & DIG (Pers.), Dte. General, SSB, New Delhi replied to the RTI Application vide letter dated 27.03.2025, as under:
Page 1 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622053"In this connection, it is informed that under Section-24(1) of Right to Information Act-2005, SSB is exempted from the provisions of the said Act, except in the cases pertaining to corruption and human rights violation. In this case, the information sought by you does not pertain to corruption and Human Right Violation on the part of SSB. Therefore, SSB being exempted from the purview of RTI Act. 2005, information is not being provided to you and your above application is hereby disposed off."
3. Aggrieved with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2025, stating as under:
"....the information sought on 07.03.2025 by me under RTI Act, 2005 relates to dishonest, biased and deceitful act of Sh Sunil Kumar, the then Commandant (Pers1) SSB FHQ New Delhi, who without any valid ground unprecedentedly excluded my name from the consideration zone of promotion in collusion with his close friend Sunil Soni and others with view to inflicting me maximum damage side by side causing tremendous stress to me during the period of an inherent illegal proceedings against me, based on anonymous complaint and planted evidences in order to sidetrack the exposed corruption in free ration cell against Sunil Soni, the then Commandant (Annexure P/7 of my service appeals dated 06.02.2024 and 02.11.2024) 30 BN SSB, Derang, Arunanchal Pradesh. On the other hand, in a similar and identical case related to the Free Ration cell of 11 BN SSB Didihat together with other cases of grave and serious nature, the blame worthy officers were either sent on deputation or U N Duty or posted to FHQ SSB New Delhi intending to evade the General Force Court SSB as per Section 88 of the SSB ACT,2007 that deals with the provision of time bar i.e 3 Years period from the date of such offence. Therefore, my explanatory representation with all supporting documents (PDF of 1mb only due to limitations is attached) dated 19.03.2022 against the order vide order No 11/02/2022/SSB Pers1(B)/3035 3107 dated 18 February 2022 signed under hand Sunil Kumar, the then Comdt (Pers1) was kept in abeyance. Thus, the omission of my name even from the consideration zone of the promotion during the inherent illegal proceedings, based on anonymous letter manufactured by Sunil Soni, the then Commandant 30 BN SSB explicitly proves the commission of a willful misapplication with intent of depriving me of my rightful Page 2 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622053 claim beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, keeping the entire episode in consideration, the element of criminal conspiracy to bury the exposed corruption is supposed to be confirmed enough to supply me the information sought under the RTI Act, 2005, on 07.03.2025."
4. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
5. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 20.05.2025, inter alia stating as under while reiterating the grounds for First Appeal:
"...Furthermore, the facts in issue against the blame worthy officers related to the case were either condoned or manipulated by the few concerned authority of the SSB involving the time bar provisions to ease their punishment so as not to hamper their career progression whereas, I have been framed, singled out and severely punished on the planted evidences by the very few officers who are the architects of the case in question. Therefore, the piece of information sought by me under RTI Act, 2005 is very much crucial in order to unfold the two different yardsticks of the SSB in the matters of conducting inquiries, and action against complaints.
Thus, for the purpose of establishing the discriminatory approach of the officers concerned of the SSB towards me vis-à-vis others in connection whereto the said application is related, I may be supplied the documents/status/action taken reports demanded by me under the online application dated 06.03.2025 in order that I might well prepare the defence against my wrongful removal from the service."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference. On behalf of the Respondent, Thomas Chacko, DIG (Pers.) & CPIO, SSB, Force HQs, SSB, New Delhi attended the hearing in person.
7. The parties were being heard in continuation of a corresponding Second Appeal filed by the Appellant vide Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041. The Page 3 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622053 Appellant reiterated the grounds for the First and Second Appeal as mentioned above in paras 3 and 5. While the Respondent also reiterated the reply provided on 27.03.2025 and referred to the common factual background of the RTI Applications filed by the Appellant as stated in the written submissions filed on 18.03.2026 by the RTI Nodal Officer & Commandant (Pers-I), SSB Force HQrs in the averred earlier case, inter alia as under:
"The RTI applications filed by Shri Praveen Kumar (Ex-Dy. Commandant) relate to promotion, disciplinary proceedings, and inspection of file relating to his removal from service.
The requests were denied under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act as SSB exempted as the information sought does not fall within the exception of corruption or human rights violation."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, and therefore the CPIO's reply is found to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the instant matter corresponds to the issues discussed/decided in Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) द्विनां क/Date: 02.04.2026 Page 4 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622053 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (बिजेंद्र कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622053 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)