Central Information Commission
Nirmal Goel vs Cpwd-Headquarter on 17 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DDGDG/A/2024/630702
Nirmal Goel ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO & SO (EC.IIA), Directorate
General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026
Date of Decision : 16.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 21.05.2024
First appeal filed on : 12.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.07.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"(1) Please provide a certified copy of file (both notes and correspondence pages) vide which my Complaint No 41857/2024 to CVO, CPWD against officials of CPWD and MOHUA, which was forwarded by CPWD Vigilance to SDG (HQ) CPWD (as per latest status on CPWD Vigilance) has been dealt by CPWD directorate. (2) Please provide an attested copy of files (both notes and correspondence pages) vide which two medical bills of my daughter Ms. Sneha Goel approved for full reimbursement by Ministry of Health vide letter no. Lr. No.Z.14025/15/23-SAS.III/EHS dated 16.02.2024 and sent to Dy Director (Admn)-1, CPWD vide letter No. Admn/2022-23/ADG(Kochi)/483-484 dated 07.03.2024 have been processed (3) It is requested to write names and designation of the officials below their signatures who have dealt the files."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.05.2024 stating as under:
"(1) Information sought is exempted under section 8(1) (j) of RTI act, 2005.
(2) Soft copies of file (both notes and correspondence pages) vide which two medical bills of her daughter Ms. Sneha Goel have been processed, are enclosed.
(3) As mentioned in noting part of file as per enclosure attached for information no. 2 above."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 16.07.2024 stated as under:
"In this regard, it is submitted that the appeal has been examined in reference to facts/details/documents/offer comments in the matter. The undersigned is of the view that information provided to you by CPIO, EC- II(A) online on RTI portal dated 21.05.2024, is complete and in order.
Accordingly, Your First Appeal is disposed off."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 6Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Nirmal Goel through VC from NIC studio Respondent: Mr. Chinmay Shukla, CPWD, CPIO
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he had filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2024 seeking certified copies of complete files, including note sheets and correspondence pages, relating to his Complaint No. 41857/2024 addressed to the CVO, CPWD against certain officials of CPWD and MoHUA, which was forwarded by CPWD Vigilance to SDG (Hg), CPWD and dealt with by CPWD Directorate. He also sought copies of file notings and correspondence pertaining to processing of two medical bills of his daughter Ms. Sneha Goel, which were approved for full reimbursement by the Ministry of Health and subsequently processed by CPWD. The Appellant also submitted that the CPIO wrongly denied information relating to his complaint by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He argued that the exemption is not applicable as the information sought relates to action taken on a complaint filed by him against public servants in discharge of their official duties, which is a public activity. He submitted that no personal information of any private individual was sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that e Appellant is seeking third-party information concerning officers against whom the complaint has been filed. It was stated that the matter is administrative in nature and the enquiry is still pending. Therefore, disclosure of action taken reports and related file notings would amount to disclosure of personal information of third parties and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent further submitted that the information relating to processing of the medical bills was already provided in soft copy form along with relevant noting portions as available on record. The Respondent has relied upon the decision of the CIC in File no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 06.6.2013 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner to justify denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner it was held as under:-
"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to Page 3 of 6 the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 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 of 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."
In the decision of the CIC in File no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 06.6.2013, it was held as under:-
"We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application and the order of the Appellate Authority. We have also considered the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in the case. The entire information sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an officer of the government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. The Appellate Authority was very right in deciding that this entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (1) of the RTI Act"
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant an employee in the Public Authority and feeling aggrieved about his personal medical reimbursement case had filed a Complaint No. 41857/2024 and is seeking information regarding the status and action taken on his own complaint. The Commission is of the view that information regarding action taken on complaints, when sought by the complainant himself cannot be denied in a blanket manner under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission further observes that transparency in dealing with complaints against public servants promotes accountability in public administration. However, if any portion of the record is exempt under the Page 4 of 6 provisions of the RTI Act, the same may be redacted in accordance with Section 10 of the Act, with proper justification.
The Commission observes that the respondent CPIO has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner to justify denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, a careful reading of the said judgment shows that the Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where a third party had sought personal service records, disciplinary memos, income tax returns, and details of assets and liabilities of a government employee. The Court held that such information constitutes "personal information" and its disclosure would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy unless larger public interest is established.
Similarly in the decision of the CIC in File no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 06.6.2013 the case was about seeking information in complaints made against third party and not exactly the same as in the instant RTI application/appeal.
In the present case, however, the Appellant is the complainant himself and is seeking information regarding action taken on his own complaint and official file processing within a public authority. The CIC in File no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 06.6.2013 and Supreme Court in Girish Deshpande case did not lay down that action taken on complaints against public servants is automatically exempt from disclosure. Therefore, reliance placed by the Respondent on the said decision/judgment is misplaced and mechanically invoked, as the factual matrix of the present case is materially different from the circumstances considered by the Hon'ble Court.
Accordingly, the Commission directs the respondent CPIO to provide the available information on point 1 of the RTI application, as per the provisions of the Act, to the Appellant free of cost within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. FAA of the respondent CPIO to ensure compliance to this direction.
With the above observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (सं जीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) date: 16.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Page 5 of 6 (S K Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO CPIO & SO (EC.IIA), Directorate General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 (2) FAA, RTI Directorate General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 (3) Shri Nirmal Goel Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)