Central Information Commission
Vineet Sehgal vs Border Security Force on 30 March, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2025/117691
Vineet Sehgal ....अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, BSF, New Delhi ... प्रद्वतवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision : 27.03.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 31.01.2025 FA : 18.03.2025 SA : 24.05.2025
CPIO : 28.02.2025 FAO : - Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision: 27.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.01.2025 before the PIO, BSF, Hq., Delhi seeking the following information:
"1. Pl. provide me copy of my receiving memo/Dak Challan on which I had received following letters of your HQ after appending my signature & copy of other records vide which these documents were handed over/sent to me as these were addressed to me. Provide me said information/documents by fastest means i.e. through my personal e-mail Id. i.e [email protected]. Whats App No. 9682668040 & 9466676667 for my information, Speed/Registered Post for my information & necessary action please as I have no record of these documents & these documents are mentioned in written statements filed in civil courts & counter affidavits filed by Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, DIG BSF & other DISG of BSF.
(1) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No.Estt./GSFC-VS/SHQ-SLC/2023/156-51 dated 7-2-23 (2) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No.Estt./VS-GSFC/SHQ-SLC/2023/117-18 dated 30-1-23 (3) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No.Estt./VS-GSFC/SHQ-SLC/2023/229-30 dated 17-2-23 Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2025/117691 Page 1 of 3 (4) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No.Estt./VS-GSFC/SHQ-SLC/2023/261-63 dated 24-1-23 (5) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No. Accts/Misc-VS-SHQ-SLC/2022/17001-06 dated 22.11.2022 (6) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No.Estt/VS/SHQ-SLC/2022/1340-43 dated 29.12.2022 (7) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No. लेखा /शे० मु0 सिलवर/2023/2020 dated 05.06.2023 (8) SHQ BSF Silchar L.No. 1584-88 dated 16/11/23. Copy of said letter is not provided to me so far by SHQ BSF Silchar."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The CPIO, BSF vide letter dated 28.02.2025 declined to disclose information, invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act. The CPIO further informed the Appellant that he was tried by a General Security Force Court and after being found 'Guilty', he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 26.09.2023 and as mandated by the BSF Act and Rules, all the documents required for enabling the accused (Appellant) to prepare his defense, have already been provided to him well before the commencement of the GSFC.
3. Not satisfied with the PIO's reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2025, which was not decided as per the documents submitted by the Appellant.
4. Aggrieved with decision of the First Appeal, 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.
Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep Kr Srivastava - Asstt. Commandant, SHQ BSF, Silchar was heard through video conference.
6. The Appellant contended that he had not been provided information sought through the RTI application. Moreover the PIO had not disclosed the name of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the reply dated 28.02.2025, which mentioned only designation and address of the FAA. The Appellant further stated that the First Appeal filed by him had not been adjudicated by the FAA.
7. The Respondent reiterated the PIO's reply affirming the denial of information on the ground that the BSF is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24 of the RTI Act. He further contended that the FAA had vide order dated 04.06.2025 disposed of the three First Appeals filed by the Appellant, upholding the PIO's reply. At this stage, the Appellant Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2025/117691 Page 2 of 3 produced a copy of the order dated 04.06.2025 stating that no information had been disclosed even by the FAA.
Decision
8. Upon hearing both parties and perusal of records, it is noted that the BSF is covered under the Second Schedule of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and accordingly is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act as such. The Appellant has neither contended nor placed any material on record relating to any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter. Therefore, the response sent by the Respondent is found legally appropriate. The Commission finds no ground for further intervention in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) Bijendra Kumar (सिजेंद्र कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2025/117691 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)