Central Information Commission
N. Rajini Kumari vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 8 September, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ITIBP/A/2024/628026.
Ms. N. Rajini Kumari ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2025
Date of Decision : 01.09.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.03.2024
PIO replied on : 21.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 19.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 21.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.07.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1. How many complaints arrived against Regtl. No. 111109965 Dr. Deepak Metrey, In the entire service, If any compliant arrived against Dr. Deepak Metrey till date give information about compliant and action taken on it.
2. If any punishment transfer availed by Regtl. No. 111109965 Dr. Deepak Metrey, intimate reason for the same."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 21.03.2024 replied as under:-
"2. इस संबंध में अवगत कराना है दक सूचना अनधकार अनधननयम-2005, खण्ड नवनवध की धारा 24(1) के तहत सूचना का अनधकार-2005, के अनुसार के न्द्रीय पुनलस बल भ्रष्टाचार एवं मानव अनधकार से संबंनधत मांगी गई सूचनाओं को छोड़कर अन्द्य कोई सूचना आर०टी०आई० एक्ट-2005 के तहत िेने के नलए बाध्य नही है। आपके िारा मांगी गई वांनछत सूचना इस श्रेणी में नही आती है. निसे सूचना के अनधकार अनधननयम-2005 में उल्लेनखत प्रावधानों के अनुरूप भा०नत०सी०पुनलस बल िारा उपलब्ध कराया िा सके । अतः आपके िारा मांगी गई वांनछत सूचना आपको उपलब्ध नही करवाई िा रही है।"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2024. The FAA, IG (Pers. & Vigilance) vide order dated 21.05.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1 "(i) Whereas, the undersigned heard the applicant on 15.5.2024 at 1530 hrs telephonically in the presence of SAO(Pers), Dte General, ITBP. During the hearing, the applicant was asked to put forth the issues that she had sought to address in the RTI appeal.
(ii) Whereas, I have gone through the contents of the RTI appeal and the comments of the CPIO vis-a-vis facts available on record and reply sent by the CPIO vide letter No.1-45024/03/2021-10152-53 dated 21.03.2024 is in accordance with the provision of Section 24 of Right to Information Act-2005 is in order. The applicant has been informed about these facts during the hearing. for which she has also agreed.
(iii) And therefore, the undersigned upholds the decision taken by the DIG (Pers)/CPIO and the appeal is, therefore, disposed of accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further, a written submission dated 22.08.2025 was provided by the Respondent, stating, "In this regard, following facts are also mentioned in the instant matter:-
(i) The Dr. Deepak Metrey, CMO(SG) was detailed for DME/RME of Constable (GD) recruitment for the year 2022.
(ii) A complaint made by Constable (GD) Rajni Kumari against Dr. Deepak Matery, CMO (SG) that during the ongoing recruitment/DME of the candidates at 45th Bn, the officer slapped/touched inappropriately her while performing her duties during recruitment in 45th Battalion, ITBP on 24.07.2023.
(iii) On receipt of complaint of the lady Constable, the case was examined and an Internal complaint committee (ICC) was constituted vide Dte. Genl order No. 29692-99 dated 18.8.2023 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Shashi Mehar, CMO (SG) to investigate the matter related to the complaint of Constable (GD) (Mahila) N. Rajani Kumari of 45 Bn, ITBPF alleging sexual harassment by Dr. Deepak Metrey, CMO (SG), 45 Bn, ITBPF, on 24.7.2023.
(iv) The ICC submitted its report dated 16.10.2023 vide letter No.3010 dated 18.10.2023."
Etc....
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Sh. Manish Kumar, CPIO and Sh. Mahendra Singh DC is also participating in the hearing.
The Appellant submits that information sought has not been provided by the CPIO. The Respondent submits that by virtue of provision contained in Section-24 read with Second Schedule of RTI Act-2005, the information sought for by the Appellant, cannot be provided since ITBP is an organization listed in Second Schedule of Right to Information Act 2005, dealing with Security is exempted from providing information except the one that relates to cases of corruption & human rights violation. He further apprised the Commission that the ICC report was examined in consultation with DIG(JAG) Dte. Genl. ITBP, further disciplinary action has been initiated and the disciplinary case against the Dr. Deepak Metrey CMO is pending and is sub judice. He further submits that the matter has been investigated by civil police, and they found nothing.
Page 2 Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent within a week thereafter..
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the submissions of both parties it is evident that the Respondent had sent an appropriate reply in terms of the provision of the RTI Act. Commission observes that the ITBP is an organisation specified under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and, accordingly, under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the ITBP is exempt from the rigours of the RTI Act. Commission notes that there is no material on record to show that there was any corruption or violation of human rights so as to bring the case of the Appellant within the ambit of the Proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act. Furthermore, the written submission filed by the PIO is self- explanatory and comprehensive whereby information as available in the records of the Respondent has been duly furnished. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The matter stands disposed of.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंिीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)