Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 23 March, 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/SSBAL/A/2025/610846
Praveen Kumar ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Sashastra Seema Bal ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.03.2026
Date of Decision : 23.03.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.11.2024 FA : 31.12.2024 SA : 05.03.2025
CPIO : 03.12.2024 FAO : 23.01.2025 Hearing : 23.03.2026
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.11.2024 before the PIO, Sashastra Seema Bal, seeking the following information:
"Kindly supply me the action taken report in connection with the blameworthy official/officials in relation to the audit report conducted at 56 Bn vide WANMSG No. 2623 dated 25.04.2020 for the purpose of preparation of my defence case."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The PIO rejected the RTI request vide reply dated 03.12 stating that the Respondent is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act, by virtue of provisions of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The Respondent also informed that: "the information sought by you in one RTI application related to corruption is not available with the CPIODIG(Pers) FHQ SSB, New Delhi. Information sought by you is closely related to the DIG/CPIO Sector Hq. SSB, Bomdila (Arunachal Pradesh). Hence, the aforesaid RTI application is being transferred under section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to the DIG/CPIO, Deputy Inspector Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/610846 Page 1 of 4 General (Central Public Information Officer), Sector Hqr SSB, Bomdila (Arunachal Pradesh), for providing the requisite information, as per the provisions."
[reproduced verbatim]
3. Dissatisfied with the PIO's reply, he filed an online First Appeal dated 31.12.2024 which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 23.01.2025, upholding the PIO's response and adding: "information related to the corruption is not available with 1 Appellate Authority FHQ. SSB, New Delhi, a copy of RTI Appeal alongwith RTI application No.07 is being transfer under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to the Inspectors General (1st Appellate Authority). Ftr Hqrs. Tezpur and Ranikhet for further necessary action." [reproduced verbatim]
4. Aggrieved by 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: Present through video conference Respondent: Mr. Thomas Chacko - DIG, SSB was present during hearing.
6. The Appellant contended during the course of hearing that the Respondent has adopted a discriminatory approach, in casting wrongful allegations against him and subsequent dismissal from service. He stated that he sought the information about the audit report to use in self defence case.
7. The Respondent contended that the Appellant had been granted multiple opportunities to defend himself by joining the General Force Court (GFC) trial, but he did not attend the hearings. He did not report to duty too, on being transferred. Since he did not join the trial, the documents could not be provided to him during the course of the proceedings. In so far as the Enquiry report sought by him is concerned, it contains comprehensive information, most of which has no bearing with the appellant or his case. Moreover, since the Respondent is exempt from the purview of the Section 24 of the RTI Act 2005, he was denied disclosure of information, under the RTI Act, particularly since the information sought by him do not pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The Respondent - referred to common written submission dated 17.03.2026, filed in the identical case number CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/610850, wherein a gist of RTI application submitted by the Appellant and a background of the case has been narrated which led to the removal of the Appellant from service on 08.12.2023, on the basis of documentary evidences and inquiries which Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/610846 Page 2 of 4 established that he had submitted fraudulent and inadmissible claim of TA/TTA and Medical reimbursement between 2018-2020. The Respondent inter alia has stated as under:
"During his tenure, a Court of Inquiry (COI) conducted on 27.07.2020 (P-87/C) and two additional COIs in 2021 found that he had submitted fraudulent and inadmissible claims of TA/TTA and Medical Reimbursement between 2018-2020.
> The Court of inquiry opined for Recovery of ₹. 8,22,899/-. > Disciplinary action initiated under SSB Act and Rules. > Rule-46 hearing conducted and Record of Evidence prepared for General Force Court (GFC) trial.
> Officer transferred to 15th Bn SSB Kajalgaon and directed to join on 12.06.2022, but failed to report for duty.
> Despite repeated notices and being declared medically fit by AIIMS Patna, he continued to remain absent.
> A Court of Inquiry on absence declared him "Deemed to be a Deserter' on 12.12.2022.
> As GFC trial became impracticable, Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 19 of SSB Rules,2009.
> With approval of the Central Government, the officer was removed from service on 08.12.2023 (Annexure-"M") under Rule 19(4Xb)."
[reproduced verbatim]
8. The Respondent has also reported the following facts as per letter dated 15.07.2024 received from the 30th Bn., SSB:
"...inquiry against Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ex-DC, was initiated on the basis of documented discrepancies in TA/TTA/MR claims. The Courts of Inquiry (COIs) and the Record of Evidence (RoE) were conducted by independent officers who verified the authenticity of the claims made by the officer. The findings of the COIs, which revealed fraudulent claims, were further corroborated by additional evidence and subsequent inquiries. This clearly indicates that the proceedings were not initiated merely on the basis of any anonymous complaint or at the instance of any single individual.
The disciplinary proceedings were handled by different officers at various levels within the SSB, thereby ensuring an impartial and unbiased process. All decisions were taken on the basis of documentary evidence and in accordance with due procedure. The employee was provided with multiple opportunities to present his case, respond to notices, and submit medical documents in support of his claims. However, the pattern of absenteeism and the contradictory nature of the medical certificates submitted by the employee significantly undermined his credibility... The disciplinary action taken against the officer is the result of his failure to adhere to the rules and regulations of the SSB, including submission of fraudulent claims and unauthorized absence from duty. The decision to terminate his services was therefore based on comprehensive evidence and adherence to procedural fairness....."
[reproduced verbatim] Decision
9. Perusal of records of the case reveals that the instant case relates to information sought Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/610846 Page 3 of 4 from the SSB which is covered under the Second Schedule of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act as such. In the light of the facts of the case, it is pertinent to consider the provision of the Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, which 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.
Emphasis supplied
10. The contentions of the Appellant in the First Appeal, Second Appeal or even during the hearing fail to bring the instant case within the purview of the proviso clause, viz. no allegation of corruption or violation of human rights has been made nor established by the Appellant. Therefore, the response sent by the Respondent is found appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover the comprehensive written submission dated 17.03.2026 filed by the Respondent is self explanatory as such. Hence, the Commission finds no requirement for further intervention in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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/SSBAL/A/2025/610846 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)