Central Information Commission
Sudhir Kumar Mishra vs Indian Air Force on 24 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/DPTMA/C/2024/614900
CIC/IAIRF/A/2024/633422
Sudhir Kumar Mishra ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
....Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Directorate of Personal Services,
Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110106 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025
Date of Decision : 24.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are clubbed together as
the Appellant/Complainant is common, subject-matter is similar in nature
and hence are being disposed of through a common order.
CIC/DPTMA/C/2024/614900
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2024
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 14.02.2024 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"The following information required by the applicant to approach the appropriate forum for review of Censure awarded by AOC-in-C. Initially, I requested the information from the CPIO HQ Maintenance Command but CPIO advised me to approach through service channel vide letter No. MC/2500/1/182/RTI (182 of 2022-23) dated 02 Aug 2022 (attached as annexure III). I followed his instruction and further applied through service channel under the provisions of rule 156 of AF rules 1969 but only perusal of requested Col documents permission given by the competent authority vide letter No. 9BRD/S 2407/415/P1 (BM) dated 28 Sep 2022 (attached as annexure IV). Photocopy of these documents and digital evidences were not provided to me due to which I could not seek legal advice for my case. Therefore, it is requested to provide the following information under the RTI Act 2005 for redressal of grievances through appropriate forum.
(a) Provide the certified copy of Rule 24 compliance Performa signed by AOC 9 BRD, which was filled for the charge trial of applicant on 13 May
22.
(b) Provide the certified copy of Court of Inquiry proceedings approved by AOC 9 BRD ordered vide para 2 of 9 BRD SRO SI. No. 12/2022 dated 11 Feb 2022.
(c) Provide the certified copy of Air HQ letter No. Air HQ/C 20447/2/13 AI(S) dated 23 Dec 21 on violation of Cyber Security: Air warrior 794713-H Sgt SK Mishra Rdo Fit of 9 BRD, AF.
(d) Provide the covering letter and forensic report with respect to applicant's smart phone vide Air HQ/S 217000/39/IEW(IW) BM-XIV dated 23 Apr 2020.
(e) Provide the forensic report with respect to applicant's Laptop, External HDD and Pen Drive vide Air HQ/S 217000/39/IEW(IW) BM-XIV dated 11 May 2020.
(f) Provide the copy of the digital evidences i.e. two DVDs (i.e. DVD bearing Sl. No. 19/20/Air HQ/VCAS/D Ops(IW)/DVD/338 and 19/20/Air HQVCAS/D Ops(IW)/DVD/333) which is mentioned in the above forensic analysis reports.
(g) Please provide the copy of noting sheets in which reason for not approving my Reconsideration of extension is mentioned by the competent authority."
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal.
CIC/IAIRF/A/2024/633422 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 2 of 9RTI application filed on : 14.02.2024 CPIO replied on : 09.04.2024 First appeal filed on : 29.04.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.06.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.08.2024 Information sought:
3. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 14.02.2024 seeking the following information:
"The following information required by the applicant to approach the appropriate forum for review of Censure awarded by AOC-in-C. Initially, I have requested the information from the CPIO HQ Maintenance Command but CPIO advised me to approach through service channel vide letter No. MC/2500/1/182/RTI (182 of 2022-23) dated 02 Aug 2022 (attached as annexure III). I followed his instruction and further applied through service channel under the provisions of rule 156 of AF rules 1969 but only perusal of requested Col documents permission given by the competent authority vide letter No. 9BRD/S 2407/415/P1 (BM) dated 28 Sep 2022 (attached as annexure IV). Photocopy of these documents and digital evidences were not provided to me due to which I could not seek legal advice for my case. Therefore, it is requested to provide the following information under the RTI Act 2005 for redressal of grievances through appropriate forum.
(a) Provide the certified copy of Rule 24 compliance Performa signed by AOC 9 BRD, which was filled for the charge trial of applicant on 13 May
22.
(b) Provide the certified copy of Court of Inquiry proceedings approved by AOC 9 BRD ordered vide para 2 of 9 BRD SRO SI. No. 12/2022 dated 11 Feb 2022.
(c) Provide the certified copy of Air HQ letter No. Air HQ/C 20447/2/13 AI(S) dated 23 Dec 21 on violation of Cyber Security: Air warrior 794713-H Sgt SK Mishra Rdo Fit of 9 BRD, AF.
(d) Provide the covering letter and forensic report with respect to applicant's smart phone vide Air HQ/S 217000/39/IEW(IW) BM-XIV dated 23 Apr 2020.
(e) Provide the forensic report with respect to applicant's Laptop, External HDD and Pen Drive vide Air HQ/S 217000/39/IEW(IW) BM-XIV dated 11 May 2020.
(f) Provide the copy of the digital evidences i.e. two DVDs (i.e. DVD bearing Sl. No. 19/20/Air HQ/VCAS/D Ops(IW)/DVD/338 and 19/20/Air Page 3 of 9 HQVCAS/D Ops(IW)/DVD/333) which is mentioned in the above forensic analysis reports.
(g) Please provide the copy of noting sheets in which reason for not approving my Reconsideration of extension is mentioned by the competent authority."
4. The CPIO/Group Captain, Public Information Cell, HQ Maintenance Command, Indian Air Force, Vayusena Nagar furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2024 stating as under:
"(a) Para (a). With respect to this para, a photocopy of Rule 24 Air Force Rules, 1969 is annexed herewith as Annexure-1.
(b) Para (b), (d), (e) & (f). With respect to these paras, it is informed you that information sought vide ibid paras are repetitive in nature and same had been provided / replied to you vide letter No. MC/2500/1/182/RTI (182 of 2022-23) dated 02 Aug 22. Seeking similar information which was earlier provided to you amounts to obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act. You are advised not to seek information which has been duly provided to you on your request.
(c) Para (c). With respect to this para, it is informed you that you had perused the entire report on 04 Apr 23 and had given an undertaking thereof. You are well aware that the report sought by you Which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(d) Para (g). As per available record, your application for reconsideration of extension of service was forwarded by your Unit to AFRO on 14 Nov 23. Further, your concerned section had been duly intimated vide 9BRD/1419/1/HRM (P3) dated 09 Feb 23 regarding non-
approval of your application by the Competent Authority. Noting sheets as sought by you are not available with the present Public Authority. Further, the Information requested vide this Para of RTI application is more closely related to AFRO, Hence the application has been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to AFRO. You are requested to make further correspondence with regard to this para directly with AFRO."
5. The CPIO/Wing Commander, Air HQ (Vayu Bhawan), Rafi Marg furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.04.2024 stating as under:
"(a) Para 7 (a) & (b) Information sought vide these paras has already been transferred to CPIO, HQ MC under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 vide Page 4 of 9 this HQ letter of even reference dated 26 Feb 24. You are requested to make further correspondence with CPIO, HQ MC directly.
(b) Para 7 (c) to (f). Information sought vide these paras is held in fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest is served by disclosure of such information. Hence, the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(c) Para 7 (g). Information sought vide this para with regard to copy of noting sheets is held in fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest is served by disclosure of such information. Hence, the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 18.06.2024, held as under:
"1. I, being the First Appellate Authority having examined the submission/ contention in the appeal, vis-à-vis the reply given by the CPIO and the material placed before me for scrutiny, observe that the appellant in his RTI application had sought various information with regard to 'Censure' awarded to him. CPIO had disposed of the application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In the instant appeal, the appellant has brought out his opinion and the reply to the contentions is as follows: -
(a) With regard to para 6 (a) of the appeal, the application was received in RTI cell on 21 Feb 24 and disposed of on 09 Apr 24. Since the information sought pertained to multiple agencies, the delay in the process appears to be unintentional.
(b) With regard to para 6 (b) of the appeal, the documents suggest that information sought vide para 7 (a) and 7 (b) of RTI application was closely related to 9 BRD which falls under the jurisdiction of CPIO, HQ MC IAF. Hence, it was transferred under Section 6 (3) and not under Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005. The letter was also marked to the appellant. A copy of the letter is annexed with this speaking order as Annexure-1.
(c) With regard to para 6 (c) of the appeal, the information sought vide para 7 (c) to (f) of the RTI application was pertaining to forensic report of appellant's smart phone, laptop, external HDD, pen drive and DVDs. In this regard, it is apprised that any correspondence made by the concerned authority pertaining to the inquiry/ investigation on the Page 5 of 9 matter is held by the organization in fiduciary capacity with that authority. Therefore, it was rightly denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1)
(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, considering the specific request and keeping the spirit of RTI Act alive, the appellant may peruse Digital Forensic Report (DFR) of his ICT device as per mutually agreed time/ date between the appellant and the custodian of the DFR at HQ MC, IAF
(d) With regard to para 6 (d) of the appeal, it is apprised that the appellant vide para 7 (g) of his RTI application had sought a copy of file noting pertaining to the reconsideration of extension. Since file noting/ correspondence contains views/ opinions of various officers in the chain, the public authority holds them in fiduciary capacity with those officers.
Hence, it was rightly denied by CPIO under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. AND WHEREAS, the aforesaid decision is supported by the CIC ruling in the case of Shri Ravinder Kumar, Appellant Vs UPSC, Public Authority (Case No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00711), the Hon'ble CIC has held that "The revealing of the note sheets containing the remarks and opinion of various officials, would identify their names, which might endanger their lives The disclosure of such information is therefore barred under Section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005"
3. NOW THEREFORE, in the light of above mentioned facts and other material available on record I, as Appellate Authority, dispose of the appeal, submitted by Sgt Sudhir Kumar Mishra, in terms of above paras of this order."
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint and second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri P K Jha, CPIO, Shri K S Raina, Group Caption, Shri Sanyam Khanna, CPIO Staff and Shri Abhishek Dutt Sharma, JWO present in person.
Shri Raj Kumar Singh, CPIO, Nagpur present through Video-Conference.
8. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal / Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 06.04.2024 and 05.08.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
Page 6 of 99. The Complainant/Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal/complaint and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the Respondent.
10. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"5.1. It is respectfully submitted that, transferred paras of the RTI Application had been duly replied by CPIO, HQ Maintenance Command as per the provision of RTI Act (Copy annexed).
5.2. Certified copies of Digital Forensic Reports of the appellant's ICT devices and related enquiry records have been provided by the IAF's Cyber Forensic Lab and are held in fiduciary capacity by the department. Disclosure of certified copies would compromise confidentiality of third- party inputs and expert methodology. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. However, in the true spirit of the RTI Act, the appellant was given an opportunity by the FAA, Air HQ to peruse Digital Forensic Report (DFR) i/r/o his ICT devices and related records at HQ, MC. The same had been perused by the appellant on 25 Jul 24 and 26 Jul 24 (copy of certificate of perusal of DFR records by the appellant is enclosed with this submission).
5.3. Further, the note sheet contains file noting, opinions, and recommendations made by various officers in chain during internal decisions-making and is held in fiduciary capacity by the department. However, the final decision/ order on extension of service has already been conveyed to the appellant by the department.
5.4. Any delay in replying was due to consultation with multiple sections/ agencies. It was procedural and not deliberate or malafide.
5.5. The RTI application was dealt in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, the Hon'ble Information Commissioner is respectfully prayed to dismiss the subject appeal being devoid of merit."
11. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their records has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that copy of COI report cannot be Page 7 of 9 provided to the Appellant, as it inter alia consists of personal information of third party where redaction or severability is not possible and is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
12. The Respondent, Nagpur submitted that the RTI application of the Appellant/Complainant was partly transferred on point Nos. (a) and (b) and copy of charge-sheet was given to the Appellant/Complainant. He further submitted that there is a procedure to obtain COI report. After following the said procedure, the Appellant/Complainant may obtain copy of COI report.
Decision:
13. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant/Appellant in the instant Complaint/Appeal was non-receipt of desired information from the CPIO. The Respondent contended that complete point-wise reply/information in the matter has already been provided to the Complainant/Appellant as per the documents available on their record.
14. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act given at the relevant point of time. However, there is a delay in providing reply to the Complainant/Appellant on his RTI application. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that reply/information should be provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated period as per the RTI Act.
15. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the Page 8 of 9 application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
16. No mala fide was observed on the part of the present CPIO.
The above-mentioned second appeal and complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA and AOA, Directorate of Personal Services, Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi - 110106 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)