Central Information Commission
Jagadeesh Balaji P vs Department Of Defence on 14 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MODEF/C/2024/615828
Jagadeesh Balaji P ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Defence Secretariat,
Department of Defence,
New Delhi - 110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.10.2025
Date of Decision : 13.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 05.04.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide the total number of Special Voluntary Retirement Cases approved by Raksha Mantris Office in the year 2021."
2. The Under Secretary & CPIO, D(Est.I/Gp.II), Sena Bhawan, MoD furnished a reply to the complainant on 05.04.2024 stating as under:
Page 1 of 3"Please refer to your RTI applications bearing Reg. No. MODEF/R/E/24/01522 dated 18.03.2024 and MODEF/R/E/24/01708 dated 27.03.2024 seeking information under RTI Act, 2005.
2. D(Est.I/Gp.II) section of Ministry of Defence, under the charge of the undersigned CPIO deals with the establishment matters of Group B(Non- Gazetted) and Group C except MTS and pay fixation matters of all officers/officials of MoD (Secretariat).
3. In this regard, it is submitted that there are no Special Voluntary Retirements approved by Honourable Raksha Mantri as far as matters dealt by D(Est.I/Gp.II) are concerned."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Naveen Kumar Singh, CPIO-cum-Under Secretary and Shri Kaustuv Kanti Neogi, Section Officer, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
7. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply based on available records has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 05.04.2024, wherein the Complainant was informed that no Special Voluntary Retirements has been approved by their office.
Decision
8. The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Page 2 of 3 Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily
9. forbidden."
10. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
The Complaint is dismissed 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 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)