Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Tomar vs Department Of Home on 8 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं ा / Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042
Rajesh Kumar Tomar ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Police Division -II, MHA
2. CPIO, ITBP ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026
Date of Decision : 07.04.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.04.2025 FA : - Complaint : 12.10.2025
CPIO : 17.06.2025,
FAO : - Hearing : 10.03.2026
02.07.2025
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Complainant last served the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF) in the rank of Commandant and was dismissed from service following a General Force Court under the ITBP Act. Hence, he filed RTI application dated 28.04.2025 before the PIO, MHA, seeking the following information:
"1. Certified copy of the final order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on the statutory post-confirmation petition dated 12.03.2022 of Shri Rajesh Kumar Tomar.
2. Certified copy of the approval/order issued by the competent authority of MHA in relation to ITBP Order No. I-26011/03/2019/Pers (Vol- VI)/18297- 303 dated 05.06.2023, signed and issued by the Senior Administrative Officer (Pers.), ITBP, on behalf of MHA.Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 1 of 7
3. Copy of the Rules of Business or delegation of authority, if any, under which the power to dispose of statutory petitions under Section 131(2) of the ITBP Act has been delegated to ITBP, specifically in quasi- judicial matters post- confirmation of a General Force Court sentence
4. Action taken report on my representation dated 20.01.2025. Copy of representation and proof of postal dispatch is annexed.
5. Copies of the complete noting sheet pertaining to the processing of the post- confirmation petition dated 12.03.2022, including:
- The notings reflecting inter-departmental consultations (if any),
- Examination and recommendations at various levels,
- The final approval or decision recorded by the competent authority, including Secretary (Home) and Hon'ble Minister of Home Affairs. (Note: If required, names of officers may be redacted in accordance with Section 8(1)(j) or other applicable exemptions of the RTI Act.)."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The PIO, Police -II, Division, MHA responded vide online reply dated 17.06.2025 stating as under:
"2. The information sought for by you is not available in this Section. However, the matter closely relates to ITBP, therefore, the aforesaid RTI application is being transferred to CPIO (ITBP) with a request to provide information, if any, directly to you, under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action."
[reproduced verbatim]
3. The PIO, ITBP vide letter dated 02.07.2025 declined disclosure of any information invoking provisions of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
4. Dissatisfied with the denial of information, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint.
5. He filed a writ petition (C) No. 17322/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was decided vide an order dated 14.11.2025 as under:
"2. This Court is not inclined to issue any peremptory directions to the CIC as regards the listing of matters before it. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances highlighted by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted liberty to mention the matter before the concerned Bench, which shall consider as to whether the hearing in the aforesaid complaint can be expedited or not." [reproduced verbatim] Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 2 of 7 Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
6. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Represented by Sh. Vivek Sheel, Advocate Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar - DIG/CPIO, ITBP and Mr. P S Dangwal - APIO, MHA, Mr. Mahender Singh - SAO(Pers.)/DC(O) attended the hearing.
7. The Complainant has submitted the written submission/counter statement dated 08.03.2026 stating the background of his case related to dismissal from service.
8. The CPIO, Police-II Division, MHA has sent the written submission/counter statement dated 11.02.2026 reiterating the facts of the case and stating that: "The RTI appeal against reply of CPIO dated 17.06.2025 has not been received by the undersigned CPIO or in the Section."
9. The CPIO, ITBP has sent a detailed the written submission/counter statement dated 03.03.2026 providing relevant facts of the case inter alia as under:
"1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Tomar, ex-of Commandant, commenced his service with the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF) as Assistant Commandant (General Duty) on 04/01/1992. During his tenure as Commandant, 11 Battalion, Pegong, Sikkim, in February 2019, multiple allegations were preferred against him, comprising charges of corruption, pilferage, misappropriation of government property, demanding unlawful collection contributions from subordinate officers, and deprivation of unit personnel from their authorized rations and supplies, together with misappropriation thereof. Consequent to the receipt of such complaints, a Court of Inquiry (COI) was duly constituted to inquire into the alleged acts of mismanagement within the Unit. The COI, upon examination of the facts and circumstances, found him prima facie blameworthy under major charges, and subsequent as per due process and adherence to the prescribed procedures, a General force Court(GFC) was convened under the relevant provisions of the ITBPF Act and Rules to adjudicate the charges preferred against him." [reproduced verbatim]
10. The Respondent-ITBP confirmed in the written submission dated 03.03.2026 that the outcome of the Complainant's Post-Confirmation Petition dated 12.03.2022 had been duly conveyed to the Complainant vide order dated 05.06.2023, a copy whereof has been submitted before the Commission, by the answering Respondent from ITBP. The Respondent-ITBP in the submission dated 03.03.2026 further stated that the representation dated 20.01.2025 of the Appellant addressed to DG, ITBP had Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 3 of 7 been received and examined by the ITBP. After due examination of the case and approval of the DG, ITBP the Appellant has been informed vide Pers. Dte. letter No. 6879 dated 12.02.2025 informing him that "necessary order/ information on your post- confirmation petition dtd 12.03.2022 has already been furnished to you after approval of the competent authority in MHA and DG, ITBP vide Dte Genl ITBP order No. 18297-303 dtd: 05.06.2023 under the signature of SAO(Pers) i.e. staff officer on behalf of DG, ITBP and further, there is no provision in ITBP Act and Rules to provide the copies of documents as requested by you." [reproduced verbatim]
11. The Respondent from ITBP has further submitted in the same written submission dated 03.03.2026 that action taken on the representation dated 20.01.2025, mentioned by the Complainant as query number 4 in the RTI application, had also been intimated to him vide Pers. Dte. Letter dated 12.02.2025. The written submission dated 03.03.2026 filed by the ITBP also contained the background of the case about the Complainant, excerpt whereof is as under:
"(ii) The GFC assembled at 39 Bn ITBPF, Greater Noida on 18th November 2020.
(iii) During the trial, 43 Prosecution Witnesses were examined. After considering all the evidence brought on record during the trial, the GFC announced its findings on 06.08.2021, supported by brief reasons thereof.
"The Court has found Sh. Rajesh Kumar Tomar, Commandant, the petitioner, 'Not Guilty of the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh, Fifteenth and Sixteenth charges and 'Guilty' of the Second, Eighteenth and Nineteenth charges. The Court has further held the petitioner 'Guilty of First, Sixth & Ninth charges under the provisions of Section 105 of the ITBPF Act, 1992 (Conviction for offences not charged). The Court has found the petitioner 'Guilty' of the Seventh charge with variations under the provisions of Rule 100(4) of the ITBPF Rules, 1994. On the basis of the findings, the court has sentenced Sh. Rajesh Kumar Tomar as given below (Details of charges proved during GFC are mentioned at Annexure-6):-
a) To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year,
b) To be dismissed from the service,
c) To forfeit all arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due to him at the time of his dismissal. (The Findings and Sentence were pronounced in open Court, being subject to confirmation).
(iv) On completion of the General Force Court trial, the GFC proceedings were sent to the Judge Attorney General for examining and further placing before the DG/Confirming Authority for confirmation of findings and Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 4 of 7 sentence. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred a Pre-Confirmation petition under the provisions of Section 131 (1) ITBPF Act, 1992.
(v) While confirming the findings and sentence of the GFC, the Confirming Authority, i.e. DG, ITBPF has remitted the punishment awarded by the GFC, i.e. "To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year" and confirmed the sentence "To be dismissed from the service" and "To forfeit all arrears of pay and allowances and other public money due to him at the time of dismissal". The findings and sentence so confirmed by the Confirming Authority was promulgated to Sh. R. K. Tomar.
(vi) The Confirming Authority has also disposed of the statutory Pre-
Confirmation petition submitted by the petitioner, as rejected; vide a detailed Order No. 509-13 dated 30.11.2021.
(vii) The officer has submitted a Post-Confirmation Petition dated 12.03.2022 under Section 131 (2) of the ITBPF Act, 1992, addressed to the Union Home Secretary, MHA, praying inter alia for annulling and suspending the sentence awarded to him by a General Force Court. (hereinafter, GFC) and confirmed by the Confirming Authority, the DG, ITBP. The same was considered and rejected by the competent authority in MHA and outcome conveyed to Sh. R. K. Tomar, vide Dte Genl. ITBP order No-18297-303 dtd 05.06.2023."
[emphasis supplied]
12. Both parties present during hearing have made their respective submissions, in line with the aforementioned proceedings. In response to the Commission's query, the Respondent from MHA explained that the files are maintained in a single file system, and the relevant file, information whereof was sought by the Complainant had been returned to ITBP, hence the information could not be provided by MHA.
Decision
13. The Commission notes from the submissions placed on record by the ITBP that the Complainant had been duly informed about the disposal of his statutory pre- confirmation petition vide order dated 30.11.2021; and also the order/ information on his post-confirmation petition dated 12.03.2022 vide order dated 05.06.2023. Thus, the written submissions filed by the CPIO leaves for no scope of intervention in the matter.
14. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that most of the information sought by the Complainant had already been provided to him by ITBP itself, he has chosen to file the instant RTI application before the MHA, claiming it to be his right to obtain final orders from the authority i.e. Central Govt, having considered his statutory post- confirmation proceeding. This would, prima facie, appear to be a misuse of the RTI Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 5 of 7 Act and as such cannot be entertained, considering the fact that the information is already available with the Complainant. In this regard, the Commission finds it relevant to refer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled:
Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability..... Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties." [reproduced verbatim]
15. The Commission also wishes to refer to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 11.04.2023 in SLP(C) Diary No. 5557/2023 UOI vs. CIC & Anr.
"It is also a settled position of law that what the information seeker cannot seek from an exempted organization like the CBI, he cannot attempt to get the same from his employer or other agencies." [reproduced verbatim]
16. The following observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Gulab Singh Rana vs CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. and Ors, WP (C) 37231/ 2016 decided on 08.12.2021 made in a case where the information was sought from the employer (Indian Overseas Bank) about request for prosecution sought against the Petitioner by the CBI:
"51. The above findings of the Central Information Commission explicitly clarifies that what an information seeker could not able to get from the CBI, cannot attempt to get from his employer or from other agencies. Such calculated applications filed under the RTI Act, at no circumstances, are entertainable." [emphasis supplied] Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 6 of 7
17. Perusal of the aforementioned records/written submission of the Respondents reveal that the information with respect to the Complainant's queries had been duly furnished to him, based on existing records, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, which has not been contested by the Complainant. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information can be found in this case. The scope and ambit of proceedings under provisions of Section 18 of the RTI Act are limited and has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787- 10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
18. In the light of the above facts, and in the absence of any deliberate concealment or malafide on the part of the Respondents in withholding information, the Commission finds no merit in the instant Complaint. Hence, the instant complaint is dismissed as such.
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 Complaint No. CIC/DHOME/C/2025/647042 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)