Central Information Commission
Yogesh Tiwari vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 2 December, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/123854
Yogesh Tiwari .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests,
Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, Van Sadan, Haddo,
Port Blair - 744102 (Andaman & Nicobar) ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025
Date of Decision : 02.12.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.04.2024
CPIO replied on : 07.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 10.05.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 31.05.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.07.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Complete E-file noting of File related to relieve of Shri. Kamal Dutta (IFS), APCCF for the period of 2023-24."CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/123854 Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.06.2024 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application dated 01.04.2024, this is to inform you that, the information sought vide aforesaid RTI application falls under the ambit of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which states that:
The information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Hence, there is no reasonable ground to determine that any public interest is involved in disclosure of the information sought by you is personal information pertaining to the Shri Kamal Datta, IFS, PCCF. Shri Kamal Datta, IFS, PCCF (Goa) has also consented not to disclose the information annexure-I."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 31.05.2024, held as under:
"Consequently, the PIO was directed to promptly process and dispose the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and provide the required information as per the Act's provisions, free of cost, if applicable.
The appeal is disposed."
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: Shri P K Paul, PIO/Conservator of Forest, appeared through video conference.CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/123854 Page 2 of 5
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 19.07.2024 is available on record.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that Shri Kamal Datta, APCCF (A&V), was appointed as the Inquiring Authority (IA) to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against him. He stated that although the IA initially granted adjournments of about one month, the inquiry proceedings were later expedited abruptly because Shri Kamal Datta was promoted and transferred to Goa as PCCF. According to the Appellant, his relieving from the A&N Islands was contingent upon completion of the disciplinary proceedings against both the Appellant and Smt. Madhuri Shukla, the co-accused. The Appellant alleged that, in haste to conclude the matter before his transfer, the IA conducted continuous hearings and completed the inquiry within a fortnight, in an arbitrary manner, without adequately addressing several grievances raised by him during the proceedings.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the Appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it pertains to the personal information of a third party. It was stated that due procedure as mandated under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act was followed, and the comments/consent of the concerned third party were obtained. The third-party categorically objected to the disclosure of the information, and therefore, the same could not be furnished to the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted that the Appellant's allegations against the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority are factually incorrect and unfounded. They asserted that the information sought is third-party information, and the PIO as well as the FAA have processed the matter strictly as per the statutory mandate 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 has sought the complete e-file noting relating to the relieving of Shri Kamal Datta, IFS, APCCF, for the period 2023-24. The CPIO denied the same CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/123854 Page 3 of 5 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, on the grounds that the information sought pertains to the personal information of a third party. The record further indicates that the PIO duly invoked the procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and sought the views of the concerned third-party, who explicitly objected to disclosure of the information.
9. The Commission notes that file notings relating to service matters, transfer, relieving, or administrative decisions of an individual officer constitute personal information, disclosure of which has no demonstrable relationship to any public activity or public interest and may lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
10. In the present case, the Appellant's arguments pertain primarily to his dissatisfaction with the disciplinary inquiry proceedings conducted by the same officer, which does not constitute a ground for disclosure of exempted information under the RTI Act. Issues relating to natural justice, fairness of inquiry, or grievances in disciplinary proceedings fall within the ambit of Service/Disciplinary Rules and cannot be adjudicated by the Commission.
11. The Commission therefore finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO or in the action taken by the FAA. The denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) is justified and requires no intervention.
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 CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/123854 Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, O/o the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Van Sadan, Haddo, Port Blair - 744102 CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/123854 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)