Central Information Commission
Jitendra Bohra vs Border Security Force on 6 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/647197
Jitendra Bohra ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, BSF, Gujarat Ftr. ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2026
Date of Decision : 02.04.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03.06.2024 FA : 14/15.08.2024 SA : 18.10.2024
CPIO : 16.07.2024 FAO : 24.08.2024 Hearing : 02.04.2026
Date of Decision: 02.04.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2024 before the PIO, BSF, stating as under:
"Matter related to wrong termination from border security force in 27 Feb 2002 I am jitendra bohra ex HC GEN MECH from jodhpur im fighting this case from last 22 years this case is related to long termination I file case against my wrong termination in Rajasthan highcourt jodhpur My case is still continue in High court thats why I file almost 40 rti for my individual documents that can help in my case But I cannot got proper action of these rti which is related to sector SHQ BSF BMR They are giving inappropriate answers regarding my individual documents Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/647197 Page 1 of 5 I want to you take necessary action against my case as soon as possible"
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The PIO, DIG,(PSO), BSF responded vide reply dated 16.07.2024 denying disclosure of information on the grounds that the information sought by the Appellant does not fall within the ambit of definition of 'information' and BSF does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, unless the information sought relates to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14/15.08.2024, which was decided vide FAA's order dated 24.08.2024, upholding the PIO's reply.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Sh. Vineet Dave, Advocate represented the Appellant through video conference Respondent: Sh. Prakhar Trivedi- DIG(PSO)/CPIO, BSF, Ftr. HQ Gujarat attended hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant was represented by his advocate who stated that his client had been wrongfully removed from service by the BSF in the year 2002 and hence he had sought appropriate legal remedies before the competent forums. The counsel for the Advocate contended that since the human rights of his client were violated by the wrongful termination of his service, hence the Appellant filed the RTI application dated 03.06.2024 seeking information from the Respondent.
7. The PIO, BSF sent a detailed written submission/counter statement dated 11.02.2026 reiterating the above facts and adding as under:
"3. The brief facts of the case are that No. 94008902 HC (Gen Mech) Jiteridra Bohra (the appellant herein) of SHQ BSF Barmer attached with 173 Bn BSF was tried by Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) on 27.02.2002 for two charges committed under Section 19(a) of BSF Act, 1968. After due appraisal of the evidence available on record, the Court found the appellant 'Guilty' of all the two charges and following the due procedure, sentenced him "To be dismissed from service" vide 173 Bn BSF Order No. 201-06 dated 27.02.2002.Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/647197 Page 2 of 5
Being aggrieved by his dismissal from service, the appellant had preferred a statutory petition to the DG BSF for reinstatement in service which was considered carefully in light of relevant records, legal provisions and evidence in SSFC trial proceedings and after a detailed consideration, DG BSF rejected the petition being devoid of merit vide FHQ BSF (D & L Br) Letter No. 5471- 75 dated 09.07.2002.
4. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 858/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur to challenge his dismissal. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.03.2003 disposed of the writ petition with direction to dispose of statutory petition of the petitioner expeditiously. Since, the statutory petition of the appellant had already been disposed of, hence, no further action was required to be taken. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Contempt Petition No. 1/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, but the Hon'ble Court had not found any merit in the contempt petition and no case for contempt, accordingly disposed of the contempt petition on 15.02.2005.
5. The appellant again filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 4600/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the department on 18.01.2007 and the petition is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Court. An application filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Court seeking early hearing of the said writ petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Court in the year 2013.
6. Later, the appellant submitted RTI application dated 03.06.2024 to the CPIO i.e. DIG (PSO), Ftr HQ Gujarat seeking some information. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as per provision of Sec-24 of RTI Act-2005, BSF is a security organization as listed in the Second Schedule of the Act, has been exempted from the operation of this Act, unless the information is related to allegation of corruption or human right violations. The case of appellant was duly examined in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and found that neither there is violation of human right nor the appellant made any allegation related to corruption. Hence, the appellant was informed vide this HQ Letter No. 5921-22 dated 16.07.2024 that since information sought by him does not fall within the ambit of Section 24 of RTI Act-2005, therefore he is not entitled for the same....
9. Since, the information sought by the appellant does not involve any allegations of corruption or human rights violations, hence the BSF is not obligated to disclose the information as sought, as the same is exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act-2005."
[reproduced verbatim] Decision
8. Upon perusal of records and hearing the averments of the parties, it is noted that the Appellant's service was terminated more than two decades before he filed the RTI Application and during this period he had sought appropriate legal remedies from the Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/647197 Page 3 of 5 Court of law. On being reminded that the BSF is covered under the Second Schedule of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and exempt from the purview of the RTI Act, the counsel for the Appellant has contended that this case is related to violation of human rights of his client and as such falls within the proviso clause of the Section 24 which states that any allegation of corruption or violation of human rights shall necessitate disclosure of information by even a security organisation otherwise exempt from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The Section 24 of the RTI Act reads as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organisations.
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
9. In order to decide whether the Appellant's query qualifies under the proviso clause, i.e. "violation of human rights", it is pertinent to refer to the judgment dated 16.09.2013 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Directorate General of Security and Anr. vs. Harender [W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013], wherein it was held as under:
"4. ...No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc...."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. The aforesaid ratio was later reiterated in another judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [W.P.(C) 11092/2017], wherein the Hon'ble Court Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/647197 Page 4 of 5 had discussed the term "human rights violation" at length, while holding inter alia as under:
"8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".
[emphasis supplied]
11. In view of the aforementioned facts, the Commission hereby upholds the PIO's reply, which is conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act. The contentions made by the Appellant's counsel are devoid of merit and the appeal is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/647197 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)