Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Priyothos Majumder vs Advanced Weapons And Equipment India ... on 12 February, 2026

                                    केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647

Priyothos Majumder                                             ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO: Gun & Shell Factory,
Cossipore, Kolkata                                         ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 26.08.2024              FA       : 28.10.2024            SA     : 03.01.2025

CPIO : 03.10.2024             FAO : 16.12.2024                 Hearing : 20.01.2026


Date of Decision: 27.01.2026

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Request for Permission Under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 Please grant permission for:

A) Inspecting and scrutinizing documents related to the DPC, review of DPC, higher responsibility charges, notional promotion, promotional orders, all related CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 1 of 13 documents and all related government orders/rules for the promotion of MCM/Machinist in GSF for 2023."

B) Taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of these documents. C) Obtaining related information in electronic form or printouts from computer records.

2. Please provide certified copies under Section 2(f) & (i) of the RTI Act, 2005, for the following authority numbers mentioned in the factory orders:

Authority Number: 107/052/HRM/IES/Prom/HS-I to MCM/22 & Dt. 22.11.2022 Factory Order No .: 3, Dated: 02.01.2023 Authority Number: 107/052/HRM/IEs-Prom/HS-I to MCM/23 ; Dt. - 02.02.2023. Factory Order No .: 517, Dated: 13.02.2023 Authority Number: 107/052/HRM/IEs-Prom/HS-I to MCM/23 ; Dt. - 03.05.2023 Factory Order No .: 1708, Dated: 08.05.2023 Authority Number: 107/052/HRM/IEs-Prom/HS-I to MCM/23 ; Dt. - 30.05.2023. Factory Order No .: 1979, Dated: 05.06.2023.

3. A meeting was conducted between the SC, ST, and OBC Employees' Welfare Association and GSF on 31.05.2024 at 11:30 A.M. The following document numbers were mentioned in the meeting minutes:

OFB L/No. PER/I/GCF/2018; dated 07.02.2020.

DoO(C&S) L/No. DJWM/RDPC/Non-Tech(OTS)/2021-2023/GB; dated 09.10.2023.

Kindly provide certified copies of the above two documents and all related information, orders, rules, instructions, records, and files associated with these numbers, as requested under Sections 2(f) & (i) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. The query is not clear and specific. It is not understood as to which specific documents the applicant has desired to inspect and scrutinize.

Thus, the query does not come under the definition of 'information' as per RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no information can be provided.

2. Copy enclosed (12 sheets).

3. Copy enclosed (05 sheets).

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.12.2024 stated as under: -

"WHEREAS you, vide your RTI application dated nil, had requested to provide some information/documents.

AND WHEREAS your queries at Points (2) & (3) were suitably replied to by the CPIO, Gun & Shell Factory (GSF), Cossipore vide letter No. 107/CPIO/RTI/68/2024 dated 03-10-2024.

AND WHEREAS for the query at Point No. (1) of your RTI application, the CPIO, GSF replied that the query does not come under the definition of 'information' as per RTI Act, 2005 as the same was not clear and specific as to which specific document(s) you had desired to inspect and scrutinize. AND WHEREAS being dissatisfied with the reply to the query (1) of your RTI application, you have preferred the First Appeal dated 28-10-2024. AND WHEREAS vide the said First Appeal, you have requested permission for inspection of the following documents as per Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

1. All guidelines issued by AWEIL HQ, DoO (C&S) and the Govt. of India that were followed for the DPC, review DPC, higher responsibilities charges, promotion confirmations, notional promotions and pay fixation for the promotion of MCM / Machinist in GSF in 2023;

2. All approval documents that authorized the continuation of the promotion procedure for the promotional position of MCM / Machinist in GSF in 2023.

AND WHEREAS for the point (1) of your appeal, it is informed that you may inspect / scrutinize the instructions followed by GSF for promotions, available in the Swamy's Manual on Establishment and Administration (Fifteenth edition - 2017, from Page 1002 to 1112) on 18-12-2024 (Wednesday) at 02:30 p.m at HRM Section.

AND WHEREAS for the point (2) of the appeal, is to state that the file related to promotion of Mastercraftsman (Machinist) for the year 2023 contains professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, disciplinary records etc which are all personal information in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court Order dated 13-11-2019 in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, the disclosure of which is exempted as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

In view of the above, your appeal is disposed of accordingly."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.01.2025.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Dr. U. Mukherjee, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent neither responded within stipulated time limit nor provided the requisite information, hence, violating provisions under Section 2 (j) and Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. He further contended that the partial relief provided by the FAA was in form of a restricted inspection offered to him. Therefore, he requested that inspection of complete documents may be facilitated by the CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 4 of 13 CPIO.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided 6 documents to the appellant during the inspection offered to him. The CPIO further argued that initially the specificity of the issues raised by the applicant in his RTI application could not be determined accurately, besides the fact that the information also included third-party related documents. Accordingly, the FAA offered inspection of the documents pertaining to the appellant, however, the remaining documents being third- party information was not divulged to him. The CPIO relied upon their latest written submissions dated 19.01.2026, reproduced as under:

"As directed vide reference above, the written submission pertaining to the notice of hearing with reference to the Second Appeal under RTI Act, 2005 preferred by Shri Priyothos Majumder is as follows:

1. That Shri Priyothos Majumder, Mastercraftsman (Machinist), Ticket No. 319, EDS, Personnel No. 6972 had forwarded an RTI application dated nil (received at CPIO's office on 28-08-2024), seeking information relating to Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) / Review DPC proceedings for promotion to the post of Mastercraftsman (MCM) for the year 2023 at Gun & Shell Factory (GSF), Cossipore, Kolkata.

2. That with respect to Query No. 1 of the RTI application, the appellant sought permission to inspect and scrutinize "all related documents", "all government orders / rules" and other records without specifying any particular document, file number, date, or issuing authority. As it was not understood as to which specific documents the applicant desired to inspect and scrutinize, CPIO replied that the query was not clear and specific and the same does not come under the definition of 'information' as per RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no information could be provided.

3. That with respect to Queries No. 2 and 3, the CPIO provided the appellant with a copy of the desired documents.

4. Thereafter, the said Shri Priyothos Majumder preferred the 1st Appeal dated 28-

10-2024 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore requested permission for inspection of the following documents as per Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

(a) All guidelines issued by AWEIL Hq, DoO (C&S) and the Govt. of India that were followed for the DPC, review DPC, higher responsibilities charges, promotion confirmations, notional promotions and pay fixation for the promotion of MCM / Machinist in GSF in 2023;

(b) All approval documents that authorized the continuation of the promotion procedure for the promotional position of MCM / Machinist in GSF in 2023.

5. After due examination of the RTI application and the CPIO's reply, the reply of FAA was:

For the point (a) above: He may inspect/scrutinize the instructions followed by GSF for promotions, available in the Swamy's Manual on Establishment and Administration (Fifteenth edition - 2017, from Page 1002 to 1112) on 11-12-2024 (Wednesday) at 02:30 p.m at HRM Section.

For the point (b) above: The file related to promotion of Mastercraftsman (Machinist) for the year 2023 contains professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, disciplinary records etc. which are all personal information in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court Order dated 13-11- 2019 in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010, the disclosure of which is exempted as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

6. The appellant, not being satisfied with the reply of the FAA, moved the office of CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 6 of 13 Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) with a request to provide proper information. Further, the purpose of his request is to inspect procedural compliance and fairness in the promotion process, which directly affects his interest as an affected person. The reason behind his complaint is he was promoted to the post of Mastercraftsman (Machinist) through review DPC in 2023 and he was financially affected due to the review DPC

7. In this regard, the following submission is made before the Hon'ble CIC:

(a) Submissions on Query No. 1- Vagueness and non-conformity with RTI Act: The appellant's Query No. 1 sought permission to inspect "all related documents", "all government orders/rules", and other records without specifying file numbers, dates, issuing authority, or exact document titles. Such omnibus inquiries have repeatedly been held to be outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The reply of the CPIO was therefore consistent with settled law.

(b) FAA's Order - Full Compliance with Law: (i) Inspection of Applicable Rules / Guidelines: The FAA permitted inspection of the Swamy's Manual on Establishment and Administration, which is a recognized compendium of promotion-related rules followed by Central Government establishments.(ii) Denial of access to Promotion Files under Section 8(1)(j): Promotion/ DPC files contain educational qualifications, ACR/APAR gradings, Vigilance /Disciplinary status and evaluation by the DPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) authoritatively held that service records, performance appraisals, disciplinary records constitute personal information, disclosure of which is exempted unless overriding public interest is established. The instant matter does not hold any such larger public interest.

(c) RTI Act. 2005 cannot be used as a tool for service disputes. The Hon'ble CIC in its Order dated 19-12-2017 in the matter of Mr. S. P. Goyal vs CPIO & ITO, CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 7 of 13 Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai held that...... The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012, Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes." In view of the above, issues relating to correctness of promotion, review DPC outcomes, or financial loss due to notional promotion fall squarely within the jurisdiction of appropriate service tribunals /courts, not under the RTI framework.

(d) No public interest established: The Appellant's claim of "procedural fairness"

is self-serving and individual-centric. The promotion file related to promotion of Mastercraftsman (Machinist) for the year 2023 contains Category (whether SC/ST), PwBD status, performance report (containing performance assessment and remarks of Divisional Officer & Group Officer), vigilance clearance and disciplinary records etc. of other employees which are all personal information in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court Orders as mentioned in page 3 of this submission. Disclosure of personal information of other employees would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy, and violation of statutory protections under Section 8(1)(j) unless a larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

Some decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 'disclosure of personal information' are:-

(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., ((2013) 1 SCC 212) upheld the decision of the Hon'ble CIC and the Hon'ble High Court declining the prayer for furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 8 of 13 said judgment is as under:

"The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."

(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 31-08-2017 in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C. S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:

5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No. 1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 9 of 13 being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No. 1

(iii) Further, the relevant portion of the judgement dated 13-11-2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 is as under:

"...59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance. evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive...."

(e) RTI Act, 2005 is not a grievance redressal mechanism. The appellant's prayer before the Hon'ble Commissioner is not confined to seeking information, but is CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 10 of 13 aimed at raising questions over.

• Review DPC procedure.

• Notional promotion effect.

• Alleged financial loss.

This squarely converts the RTI proceeding into a service grievance and adjudication forum, which is not permissible under law. The scope of the RTI Act, 2005 is limited to providing information held by or under the custody and control of a public authority. The RTI mechanism is not intended for redressal of grievances or resolution of service-related claims. Therefore, the request made in his 2nd Appeal cannot be considered within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005.

Hon'ble CIC, in its decision dated 08-01-2019 in the Appeal No. CIC/UIICL/A/2017/167414-BJ in the matter of Mr. T. C. Sadhwani Vs CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not a redress of grievance mechanism. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

Therefore, even if the appellant is aggrieved with review DPC, promotion order or financial implications, his remedy lies before the appropriate Service Tribunal/Court and not under RTI Act, 2005.

8. In view of the foregoing facts and settled legal position, it is respectfully submitted that:

➢ The CPIO and the FAA have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

➢ Adequate and lawful information has already been provided to the Appellant. ➢ The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, misconceived, and an attempt to use the RTI Act, 2005 to pursue a service grievance.

9. It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner may dismiss the Second appeal and uphold the replies furnished by the CPIO and the order passed by the FAA."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the FAA's decision facilitating inspection of the documents pertaining to the appellant, is found appropriate, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant's prayer for complete inspection of documents stated in his RTI application cannot be allowed, since the documents, except for those disclosed to the appellant, pertain to third-parties, hence, are exempted from disclosure as per provisions under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the written averments, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court passed in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, are taken on record and are found appropriate.

In view of the above, there appears to be no further scope of relief in the matter. However, it is noted that there was a delay of one week in responding to the RTI application, hence, the CPIO is cautioned to strictly abide by the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act in future cases. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 27.01.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 12 of 13 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Joint General Manager (Administration), Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, A Unit of AWEIL, Cossipore, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700002

2. Priyothos Majumder CIC/AWEIL/A/2025/100647 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)