Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 1 April, 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/SSBAL/A/2025/117023
Praveen Kumar ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Sashastra Seema Bal ... प्रद्वतवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision : 27.03.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.03.2025 FA : 12.04.2025 SA : 18.05.2025
CPIO : 27.03.2025 FAO : 25.04.2025 Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision: 27.03.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 06.03.2025 before the PIO, MHA, seeking the following information:
"Kindly allow inspection of MHA file U.O NO A-12011/2/2023- Pers. III (CF NO 3626563) dated 24.02.2024 dealing with my disciplinary cum appeals case and taking extracts from these files in order to prepare my defence of the case against my wrongful removal from the service. Your kind action into this matter will help me out to know me the reasons related to considerable delays of 259 days in communicating me the observation of MHA in question by the SSB together with non-communication on my reminders addressed to the respected, Home Secretary on 06.07.2024, 13.04.2024 and 13.12.2024 And eventually, a non-speaking order vide letter ending No1488-89 dated 29.01.2025 under intimation to section officer (Pers. III) MHA was communicated to me. Relevant documents are attached. The cost of photocopy will be borne by me as per the Right To Information (Regulation of fee and cost) Act, 2005..."
[reproduced verbatim] Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/117023 Page 1 of 5
2. The PIO, SSB rejected the RTI request vide reply dated 27.03.2025 stating that the information pertains to CISF which is exempt from providing information in terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act, except for cases of corruption or violation of human rights, and the Appellant's queries do not fall within those two categories
3. Dissatisfied with the PIO's reply, he filed an online First Appeal dated 12.04.2025 which was decided by the FAA vide order dated 25.04.2025, upholding the PIO's response.
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 had dragged him in Enquiry and discriminated against him for being a whistleblower in unearthing corruption in the SSB. He contended that the allegations of corruption cast against him were baseless and have been challenged before the High Court of Patna, where the case is sub judice. He further averred that he has been tortured by wrongful allegations and subsequent dismissal from service and hence he sought the information to use in his self defence before the appropriate legal forum.
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. The Respondent reiterated that the SSB is exempt from the purview of Section 24 of the RTI Act 2005, hence disclosure of information, under the RTI Act was denied to the Appellant, particularly since the information sought by him does not pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation.
8. The Respondent - Commandant (Pers-I), FHQ, SSB placed on record the written submission dated 16.03.2026, enclosing a gist of RTI application submitted by the Appellant and a background of the case. The Respondent has narrated the facts which led to the removal Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/117023 Page 2 of 5 of the Appellant from service on 08.12.2023 stating that Ftr. Hqrs, SSB, Tezpur vide letter dated 24.03.2022 forwarded there with an application dated 19.03.2022 submitted by Shri Praveen Kumar, Ex Dy. Comdt.(GD) of 30th Bn regarding non considering his promotion to the rank of Second-In-Commands for the vacancy year 2022. The Respondent has further averred as follows: "In this regard it is intimated that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has assessed Ex-Dy. Comdt. Shri Praveen Kumar as "Unfit", as his integrity could not be certified due to a pending Court of Inquiry (COI).
A COI was initiated against the officer for fraudulent claims of TA/TTA and MR bills, vide DIG, SHQ Bomdila Order No. SHQ-BDLISSB/Amit Kumar DC(Med)/30/8n12013966-70 dated 27.07.2020, which was under progress at the Additional COI stage. Consequently, the initiating officer of the APAR for the period 15.08.2019 to 31.03.2020 has remarks that:-
"One Court. of Inquiry against Shri Praveen Kumar is in progress regarding fraudulent financial claims; his integrity will be certified after an outcome of COI."
9. The Respondent inter alia has added 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]
10. The Respondent has also mentioned in the written submission as under:
"the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has assessed Ex-Dy. Comdt. Shri Praveen Kumar as "Unfit", as his integrity could not be certified due to a pending Court of Inquiry (COI) (P-34/c).
A COI was initiated against the officer for fraudulent claims of TA/TTA and MR bills, Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/117023 Page 3 of 5 vide DIG, SHQ Bomdila Order No. SHQ-BDL/SSB/Amit Kumar DC(Med)/30/Bn/20/3966-70 dated 27.07.2020, which was under progress at the Additional COI stage. Consequently, the initiating officer of the APAR for the period 15.08.2019 to 31.03.2020 has remarks that:-
"One Court. of Inquiry against Shri Praveen Kumar is in progress regarding fraudulent financial claims; his integrity will be certified after an outcome of COI." (P-34/C) Further, reply on his application dated 19.03.2022 has also been provided to the applicant through Ftr. Hqrs, SSB, Tezpur vide this office Memo No.......SSB/Pers.- (B)/7931 dated 29.04.2020 (P-51/C).
11. The Respondent's report also mentions that an appeal dated 06.02.2024 was addressed to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, with a copy endorsed to the DG, Sashastra Seema Bal, New Delhi, and received from the Ministry of Home Affairs vide U.O. No. A-12011/2/2023-Pers-III (CF-No. 3626563) dated 24.04.2024 (and not dated 24.02.2024). In the said appeal, the appellant had requested to set aside the SSB Order dated 08.12.2023 regarding removal from service. In response to the same, the MHA made the following observation:
"Shri Praveen Kumar was removed from service after obtaining the approval of the Disciplinary Authority/Competent Authority (Hon'ble HM). As such, the appeal should have been filed before the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority or the President of India, instead of preferring the appeal before an authority subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority, as a subordinate authority cannot act as an Appellate Authority to review the disciplinary action taken by the Disciplinary Authority."
Informed accordingly to the officer vide this office letter No.6/50/2009/SSB/Pers-I(B) /14604 dated 23.10.2024....."
[reproduced verbatim] Decision
12. Perusal of records of the case reveals that the instant case relates to information regarding promotion, disciplinary proceedings, and inspection of file relating to the Appellant's removal from service. He has sought the information 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 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/117023 Page 4 of 5 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
13. 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 16.03.2026 filed by the Respondent discussed hereinabove is self explanatory as such. Hence, the Commission finds no requirement for any 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 (बिजेंद्र कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/117023 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)