Central Information Commission
Avani Sharma vs Indian Navy on 17 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/INAVY/A/2024/111225
Avani Sharma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval
Command, Naval Base Post,
Visakhapatnam - 530014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025
Date of Decision : 16.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 02.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 08.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.02.2024
Compliance of FA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 21.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Information regarding Complaint against 06820-Z Lt Cdr Gaurav R Bharti for immoral breach of trust and sexual exploitation on false promises of marriage.Page 1 of 7
Respected Sir,
1. I, Ms. Avani Sharma am a Bonafide citizen of India.
2 Plz ref my complaint dt 17 Apr 2021. You are cognizant that the accused was imprisoned in Dehradun jail wef 18 Aug 2021 for offences under Section 376 & 323 IPC. He was finally released on 29 Apr 2023 on non-admissibility of evidences on technical grounds as the multiple fake matrimonial profiles where he reflected himself as unmarried were not as per format and hence not taken into consideration. The judgement has been challenged in High Court, Nainital vide Criminal Appeal No. 309/2023 (relevant part of judgement is attached as Exhibit 'A').
3. In this reference, I would like to reiterate that I had lodged an official complaint against 06820-Z Lt Cdr Gaurav R Bharti with FOC-in-C, Eastern Naval Command with a copy to your good offices. Notwithstanding the fact, all the charges leveled against the accused have already been proven beyond doubt. However, the pertinent highlights of charges in the complaint are as under-
(a) Creating multiple fake IDs on matrimonial website (Bharatmatrimony.com) in the year 2018, 2019 & 2020 with intent of fraud and sexual encounters with unsuspecting females who are genuinely looking for potential grooms for marriage but instead are being exploited as a sex toy for defaulter's lust and desire for sex since years. Details of multiple fake matrimonial IDs from just one website is attached as Exhibit 'B' which can also be provided to your office since it is available on record for your ready reference as under-
(vii) He made first profile ID No. H7201643 in the year 2018 and after trapping some girl/lady, he deleted the same on 11 Dec 2018.
(viii) Thereafter, he made his second profile ID No. H7871135 on 05 Sep 2019 and the same was deleted on 09 Sep 2019, after trapping another girl/lady
(ix) Thereafter, he made his third profile ID No. H8919743 on 22 Aug 2020 and the same was also deleted on 17 Sep 2020, after trapping me. In all the fake matrimonial profiles with Bharat Matrimony alone (God knows how many more fake matrimonial IDs were created on other platforms too), the accused has shown himself as "never married and he has given the same email ID ie.Page 2 of 7
[email protected]. These profiles were made by the accused at the time of existence of his marriage, which was solemnized on 11 Jul 13 in Delhi.
(b) Posting photos of service heptr/eqpt in uniform on social media to lure innocent females by glamouring service uniform/ eqpt.
(c) Offering and leasing Service ID Card as surety for genuinity of identity to carry out fraud and sexual encounters.
(d) AWL/Break in Service while leaving TD Stn w/o proper auth sanction on two occasions for a total of 07 days.
(e) Financial fraud by claiming TD rates for hotel accn and DA while not being in duty stn and being AWL.
(f) Outraging modesty of a woman and forcefully raping without the consent by blackmailing and on false promises of marriage.
(g) Cheating, fraud and adultery while engaging a government employee (Civil Defence Employee) and clearly bringing disrepute to the services.
4. In this matter a BOI was conducted and I have asked for a copy of BOI for my own satisfaction whether the prestigious Indian Navy is amenable to provide justice to a lady employee, especially in the light of government push to empower women.
5 Info Sought. May I request your good offices to furnish fwg info to me so that I am assured that appropriate disp action has been taken against the defaulter for his sins and bringing disrepute to the Indian Navy:-
(i) Copy of convening order of BOI (Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act not applicable).
(j) Copy of tentative charge sheet furnished to 06820-Z Lt Cdr Gaurav R Bharti.
(k) Copy of statement by undersigned as given to BOO during BOI.
(l) Copy of relevant portions in the statement of 06820-Z Lt Cdr Gaurav R Bharti as given in BOI which warrants invoking of AR 180 and relevant NR.
(e) Actions taken by Deptt on the accused officer.Page 3 of 7
6. It is also reiterated that the undersigned is also a government employee in MoD and signatory of official secret act too. Moreover, the matter pertains to me personally and cannot be denied on security clause.
7. You are also requested to please quote relevant para under RTI Act 2005, if any of the above is denied to me. It is emphasized that since I am the original complainant none of the info I have asked can be denied under RTI Act Sec 8."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.01.2024 stating as under:
"The information sought by you has already been provided vide HQENC/ PIO letter PIO/0128/DEC 23/01 dated 29 Dec 23."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 16.02.2024, held as under.
"Your appeal has been examined in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act, 200 At the outset, it is seen that the information sought by you pertains to the ongoing investigation against Lt Cdr Gaurav R Bharti (06820-Z), disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, 2005."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Capt. GS Ugandhar Reddy, PIO, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 12.04.2024 is available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that she is the original complainant in the matter, and she is a government employee. She contended that she has a right to know the outcome of her complaint and a copy of her own statement Page 4 of 7 as recorded by the BOO during the BOI, as well as details of the action taken by the department on her complaint. She argued that denial of these specific points under Section 8(1)(h) is not tenable as the disclosure of such information to the complainant does not impede the process of investigation or prosecution.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that he had filed a written submission dated 01.09.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"6.1 Justification for Response by PIO The information sought vide RTI Application was rightfully denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. 2005, view pendency of investigation at the relevant point of time and disclosure of requisite information could impede the investigation.
6.2 Justification for Order of FAA. In her First Appeal, the appellant had reagitated the grounds that she being an employee of Ministry of Defence and complainant in the instant case and signatory of Official Secrets Act (Bound by Official Secrets Act, 1923) is entitled to requisite information. The said arguments of the appellant were also considered However, since the investigation was pending at the relevant point of time, requisite information was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6.3 It is pertinent to mention that a Govt. Servant is entitled to be present during OMI/ Bol and exercise his/her right to defend only if inquiry affects his/her character or reputation, or results in imputation of liability / or is responsible for any loss or damage or contravened any regulation or orders (Regulation 205 of the Regulations for the Navy Part-II (Statutory) refers). In the instant case, the appellant is only a complainant, and therefore not entitled to any further access to the proceedings of inquiry. Further, Regulation 209 of the Regulations for the Navy Part-II (Statutory) provides that a person in govt. service is entitled to a copy of proceedings of Bol only of his/her character, conduct or reputation is affected by anything in the evidence before BOI Whereas, the appellant does not fall under the ambit of said regulation also and therefore not entitled to a copy of the proceedings of Bol.
6.4 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commission (2013) 1 SCC 212 dated 03 Oct 12 has Page 5 of 7 held that "performance of an employee/ officer in an organisation 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 and on other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to privacy of that individual". Therefore, in the instant case, information sought is also exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 7 It is also brought to the kind notice of Hon'ble CIC that the appellant inter- alia filing several RTI Applications/ First Appeals dated 16 Aug 23, 25 Sep 23, 04 Nov 24, 10 Jan 25, 04 Feb 25, 10 Feb 25, 05 Mar 25, 09 Apr 25 and 16 Jun 25, which have already been responded to by IN, sans the RTI Applications/First Appeals 09 Apr 25 and 16 Jun 25 and subsequent Second Appeals dated 04 Feb 25 and 30 Jul 25, which are pending for hearing before the Hon'ble CIC on the subject matter, had further resorted to various means to seek the same information vide her representations to the Chief of the Naval Staff dated 12 Aug 24 and 30 Sep 24 and the Hon'ble Defence Minister of India dated 10 Feb 25, which have also been responded to by IN. A copy of all is placed at enclosure for reference.
8. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the denial to information sought was in conformity with the scheme of RTI Act, 2005. It is requested that the Hon'ble CIC may uphold the order of FAA and dispose off the Second Appeal. The appellant may further be advised not to initiate any further infructuous correspondence on the subject matter."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant is the complainant in the matter and has sought information primarily concerning herself and the action taken on her complaint. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, applies where disclosure would impede the process of investigation or prosecution. Providing a copy of the Appellant's own statement [point No. 5 (k)]and the factual position regarding the action taken on her complaint [point No. 5 (e)] would not prejudice the inquiry or any possible proceedings. She, being the complainant in the matter, is entitled to broad outcome of the same. Therefore, the denial of these two specific points by the Respondent Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law.Page 6 of 7
8. In view of the above, the Commission directs the Respondent CPIO to (i) Provide a copy of the statement of the Appellant as given to the BOO during the BOI [point No. 5 (k)]; and Provide information regarding the action taken by the Department on the accused officer [point No. 5 (e)], within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
9. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is 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, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam - 530014 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)