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/2025/622041
Praveen Kumar ... अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Sashastra Seema Bal,
Assam ...प्रनिवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.03.2025 FA : 17.03.2025 SA : 20.05.2025
CPIO : 14.03.2025 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision: 01.04.2026
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 supply me the action taken report in relation to FIR No 249 Nepali Year 066/067 & Indian Year 25.06.2010 as well as seizure of SSB motorcycle Bike No BR 38-0036 by Nepal Police in connection with a firing incident between 24 BN SSB Bathnaha and smugglers. Also, supply me the administrative / disciplinary action taken against the SSB personnel involved in the very fiasco that resulted into the loss of life of a Nepali citizen together with seizure of the SSB bike in question.Page 1 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041
The information sought under the RTI Act, 2005 do not breech the security of either Deptt, Ministry or nation."
2. The CPIO, SHQ, SSB, Rangia, Assam replied to the RTI Application vide letter dated 14.03.2025, as under:
"2. In this regard, it is intimated that under Section-24 of the 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. No case of corruption and human rights violation is involved the instant case on the part of SSB."
3. Aggrieved with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2025, stating as under:
"The information sought under RTI Act, 2005 very much pertains to the human rights violation on account of the incident, related to the killing of a Nepali citizen.
Furthermore, the very incident also involves the seizure of the SSB motorcycle Bike bearing registration No BR 380036 in Nepal which must have called for inquiry into the matter against the alleged SSB personnel namely Insp/Gd Hitendra Singh Patial (Now DC posted at 30 BN SSB, Dirang) and the then HC/GD Madan Singh Soda resulting into either some disciplinary action or administrative one. Fourteen years have passed since the SSB motorcycle Bike in question was seized on the Nepali Soil in connection with the incident as per my knowledge. Moreover, the alleged personnel in such a serious case have been extended undue favour, impunity with rewards of promotion and desired postings by the concerned authority of the SSB, whereas, I have been singled out and punished severely by the way of planting evidences and flagrant violation of the settled law of the land. Thus, for the purpose of establishing the said discriminatory approach of the officers concerned of the SSB towards me in relation to others; in connection whereto the said application is related, I may be supplied with the demanded information sought under RTI Act, 2005..."Page 2 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041
4. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. However, the Appellant enclosed a copy of the following undated remarks received by him on the online portal subsequent to the First Appeal, as under:
"This matter seems to be related to Frontier Patna. Hence, applicant be informed to correspond with Frontier Patna for further information and necessary action"
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...."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference. On behalf of the Respondent(s), Thomas Chacko, DIG (Pers.) & CPIO, SSB, Force HQs, SSB, New Delhi attended the hearing in person.
7. The Appellant argued on the lines of the grounds for First and Second Appeal as mentioned above in paras 3 & 5.
8. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant. The Commission further perused the written submissions filed on 18.03.2026 by the RTI Nodal Officer & Commandant (Pers-I), SSB Force HQrs, stating the factual background of the incident of the averred motorcycle seizure and its aftermath, entailing sensitive correspondence with Page 3 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041 the Nepal Police etc. The following contents relating to the disposal of the First Appeal under reference, as mentioned in the said written submissions is reproduced hereunder:
"...Upon receipt, the application was examined in this office. It was observed that the information sought was not available with the 1 st Appellate Authority, Force Headquarters (FHQ), SSB, New Delhi. Further scrutiny indicated that the subject matter of the appeal was more closely related to the office of the IG/1st Appellate Authority, Ftr Headquarters SSB, Guwahati (Assam). Accordingly, in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the said 1st Appeal was transferred to the IG/1st Appellate Authority, Ftr Headquarters SSB, Guwahati (Assam) on 18.03.2025 through the online MIS Portal for providing the requisite information directly to the applicant. Subsequently, the transferred 1st Appeal was examined and disposed of by the concerned IG/1st Appellate Authority, Ftr Headquarters SSB, Guwahati (Assam) on 14.05.2025..."
9. Further, the Respondent vide the above said written submissions has further argued 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."
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that while the alleged killing of a Nepali citizen is being put forth as the subject matter of the instant RTI Application to make out a case for human rights violation, the grounds for the First and Second Appeals suggest that the Appellant is harping on alleged discriminatory approach adopted by SSB officers leading to a severe disciplinary action against him while others were given promotions and postings etc. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, the material on record cannot be said to be related to an allegation of corruption or human rights violation, and therefore the CPIO's reply is found Page 4 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041 to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the written submission filed by the CPIO leaves no scope of intervention in the matter.
11. In the facts of the instant case, the Commission relies on a 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] The aforesaid ratio was later reiterated in a judgment dated 02.02.2018 of the same 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 it was inter alia held 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".
9. The expression "Human Rights'' denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.
10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression "Human Rights‟ is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".
Page 5 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/62204111. The expression "Human Rights Violation‟ as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied]
12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that 'No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.'... ''
12. In view of the foregoing observations, no scope for intervention is pertinent in the matter.
13. 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: 01.04.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (बिजेंद्र कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 of 6 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/622041 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)