Central Information Commission
Balwinder Singh vs Ministry Of Defence on 13 April, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/641205
Balwinder Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
1. Ex-Servicemen Contributory 2. RTI Cell,
Health Scheme, New S A Colony, Addl DE AE, G6, D-1 Wing,
Jalandhar Cantt, Jalandhar, IHQ of MoD (Army),
Punjab-144005 Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4,
New Delhi-110011
3. Stn. HQ Jalandhar,
PIN 901209 C/o 56 APO
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026
Date of Decision : 13.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from second appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 27.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's : 03.10.2024
order
Second Appeal dated : 18.09.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application on 13.07.2024 seeking the following information:
"Please provide status of complaint submitted to Director Regional Centre ECHS Jalandhar Cantt Hardiyal Road T25 Punjab copy of complaint attach."
2. The CPIO, ADG AE, IHQ of MOD transferred the RTI application to Stn HQ, Jalandhar on 29.07.2024.
However, no reply was provided by the Stn HQ, Jalandhar.
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on 13.08.2024. The FAA, ADG AE, IHQ of MoD transferred the RTI appeal to Stn HQ, Jalandhar on 22.08.2024 and Appellant was informed about the transfer vide letter dated 27.08.2024.
The FAA, HQ 91 Sub Area, Jalandhar vide its order on 03.10.2024 stated as under:
"1) Please refer your appeal Number Nil dated 13 August 2024.
2) It is to inform that investigation on your complaint was carried out and no malpractice was found to be carried out by Harpreet Eye and Dental Care Centre.
3) For your information please".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Mr. Balwinder Singh Respondent: Brig. JM Sharma, CPIO, IHQ of MOD, Col. Ajay Pal Singh, HQ 91 Sub Area, CPIO and Col. Ashish, Dir. R.C. ECHS
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
Page 2 of 66. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the letter dated 14.05.2025 merely stated that the complaint had been investigated and appropriate action initiated, whereas replies to the RTI application was vague, contradictory, and non-speaking. It was submitted that such statements do not constitute "information" under the RTI Act. The Appellant further submitted that relevant records, including the investigation/inquiry report, details of the inquiry officer, and action taken report along with supporting documents etc, were not disclosed
7. Written submissions dated 25.03.2026 and written submissions dated Nil filed by the appellant is taken on record which states that the respondent CPIO and FAA failed to provide information within time. It is stated that in letter dated 14.05.2025 it was stated that "the complaint has been investigated and appropriate action has been initiated" while the subsequent reply was vague, contradictory and non-speaking. It is also submitted that mere statement or conclusions do not constitute information under RTI Act. It is also stated that corresponding record have not been disclosed. Therefore, it is prayed that copies of investigation /inquiry report, detail of inquiry officer, action taken report with supporting orders etc be provided.
8. The respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that the FAA, HQ 91 Sub Area, provided a reply on 03.10.2024 informing the Appellant about the status of the complaint. It was also submitted that the information could not be furnished within time by the respondent CPIO as the custodian of the information, i.e., Regional Centre ECHS and Stn HQ (ECHS) Cell, had not provided the requisite inputs in time. However, once the status of the complaint was received, the same was communicated to the Appellant. Further, it was submitted that the complaint dated 06.07.2024 against Harpreet Eye and Dental Care Centre was duly investigated by the competent authority, and no wrongdoing was established. Accordingly, the matter was closed after initiating appropriate action, and a counselling letter was issued to the concerned hospital
9. Written submissions dated 19.03.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO, IHQ of MoD is taken on record which states that the RTI application was received on 24.07.2024 and transferred to the CPIO, Station Headquarter, Jalandhar on 29.07.2024. First Appeal was also transferred on 22.08.2024. It is also submitted that on 03.10.2024 the FAA, HQ 91 Sub Area replied to the appellant. Copy of written submissions to the appellant is stated to be sent through email.
Page 3 of 6Written submissions dated 01.04.2026 filed by the respondent CPIO, HQ 91 Sub Area is taken on record which states that the Appellant had filed a complaint against Harpreet Eye and Dental Care Centre Jalandhar on 06.07.2024 and in respect of that complaint he filed an RTI application. It is also submitted that RTI application was received on 14.08.2024 via transfer from IHQ of MOD. It is also submitted that the information was not made available by the custodian of information i.e., Regional Cente ECHS, JRC and Stn HQ cell (ECHS), therefore CPIO could not furnish the information and in the meantime First Appeal was filed. The First Appeal was received via transfer on 02.09.2024 and status of complaint was intimated to the appellant on 03.10.2024.
Written submissions dated 09.04.2026 filed by the ECHS Regional Centre is taken on record which states that the reply forwarded by the office of Director, Regional Centre ECHS, Jalandhar vide letter dated 14.05.2025 addressed to Shri Balwinder Singh was in response to the complaint dated 06.07.2024 submitted by the complainant. It is further stated that since no wrongdoing by the hospital was established after investigation by the competent authority, the said office communicated that appropriate action had been initiated and the complaint was treated as closed. A counselling letter was also issued to the concerned hospital. It is also stated that the reply of the First Appellate Authority to the RTI application dated 13.07.2024 was based on the records available.
Decision:
10.The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that the appellant had sought the status of his complaint dated 06.07.2024 through RTI application dated 13.07.2024.
From the material available on record, it is evident that the status of the said complaint was communicated to the Appellant by the Respondent authorities, first through the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 03.10.2024 and subsequently through the letter dated 14.05.2025 issued by the Regional Centre ECHS, Jalandhar.
The Commission notes that the appellant in his written submissions had sought for copies of investigation /inquiry report, detail of inquiry officer, action taken report with supporting orders etc. However, the Commission observes that the information supplied corresponds to the scope and contents of the original RTI application, which was limited to seeking the Page 4 of 6 status of the complaint and did not specifically call for detailed records such as the investigation report, identity of the inquiry officer, or copies of action taken reports along with supporting documentation. The Commission is of the view that the Appellant, at this stage, cannot expand the scope of the original RTI application by seeking additional details such as inquiry reports, names of officers, or other related documents which were not specifically sought in the original RTI application.
Further, the Commission does not find any malafide intent on the part of the respondent CPIOs in handling the RTI application. Though there appears to have been some delay due to inter-departmental transfer and dependency on the custodian of records namely the Regional Centre ECHS, the available information has already been furnished.
In view of the foregoing observations and findings, the Commission is satisfied that an appropriate has been provided to the Appellant. Accordingly, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the present matter.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 13.04.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme, New S A Colony, Jalandhar Cantt, Jalandhar, Punjab-144005
2. CPIO Stn. HQ Jalandhar, PIN 901209 C/o 56 APO
3. CPIO RTI Cell, Addl DE AE, G6, D-1 Wing, IHQ of MoD (Army), Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4, New Delhi-110011
4. Balwinder Singh Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)