Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Naresh Sharma vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 12 March, 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/DOP&T/A/2025/609359

Naresh Sharma                                                       ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम

CPIO: Department of Personnel
& Training, New Delhi                                          ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 18.02.2025              FA     : 19.02.2025              SA      : 23.02.2025

CPIO : 19.02.2025             FAO : 21.02.2025                 Hearing : 11.02.2026


Date of Decision: 10.03.2026
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ Allow me to provide an introduction before I get to the queries. I live in Pathankot, Punjab and since more than 2 years, I have been asking the Punjab Police to act against my wife because, among other reasons, I suspect that my two children are biologically not mine. The DNA test to ascertain their paternity was provably incorrect, a Police complaint was filed with the Delhi Police, which botched up the enquiry leading me to file a Police complaint against CIC/DOP&T/A/2025/609359 Page 1 of 6 them. Punjab Police has also not provided me a proper answer to my query with them on my criminal record.

I have had a lot of time to think over these issues and I am not sure if I overdid it. India is touted as a tolerant country by many thinkers absorbing people of different kinds into its fold. But I think that may not be the full story and there could be an abundance of biological ******.

Law does not discriminate against ******* but world over, ****** are looked down upon, and it would be incomplete to say that this is merely a traditional bias, and a more complete response would be along the lines that children raised without proper parental care might turn out to be different. I think I would be right in saying that while law in various countries may not discriminate against ******, no country would want its institutions, public or private, to be populated by *******. Now, the question is if such an issue, and it appears to be a rather grave one, be tackled at a policy level or left unchecked relying on social evolution. This forms the basis of this RTI application.

1. Is there a policy or any such proposal for a policy that there must be a mandatory declaration by a Government job aspirant if he is a *******?

2. If the answer to query 1 is yes, then is there such a policy or proposal for such a policy also for the private sector?

3. Is there a policy or proposal to perform random DNA tests, perhaps secretively, on the Government employees to ascertain their paternity? For example, this might be legally helpful in sacking the employee if he lied on the declaration in query 1 by saying that he was not a ***** but turns out to be one. Such tests could also determine how big is the ******** of Government employees.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.02.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"As per the Right to Information Act, 2005, only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority in the form of O.M., Notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Moreover, creation of information, drawing of inference, making of assumptions, interpreting the information, solving the problems raised by the applicants, furnishing replies to hypothetical questions and deducing some conclusion from the material are outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Collection and Collation of information are also outside the purview of RTI Act.

This CPIO is concerned with CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, which are available in public domain at https://dopt.gov.in/download/acts. These Rules are self-explanatory. The amendments in these rules are available in public domain at https://dopt.gov.in/notifications/gazette-notifications. Applicability of these rules are available in Rule 1 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which are available in public domain at https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/CCS_Conduct_Rules_1964_Updated_27Feb1 5_0.pdf and https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/CCS-CCA-Rules-FINAL.pdf respectively. Violation of any of the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and other guidelines may attract disciplinary action under Rule 14 or 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and penalties mentioned under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules may be imposed.

As regards your queries, there is no specific material information available under the jurisdiction of this CPIO. However, it is informed that definition of Member of Family for the purpose of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 is mentioned in Rule 2(c) of CIC/DOP&T/A/2025/609359 Page 3 of 6 the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is self-explanatory and available in public domain at https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/CCS_Conduct_Rules_1964_Updated_27Feb1 5_0.pdf. As per this definition, Members of family in relation to a Government servant includes (i) the wife or husband as the case may be, of the Government servant, whether residing with the Government servant or not but does not include a wife or husband, as the case may be, separated from the Government servant by a decree or order of a competent Court (ii) son or daughter or step-son or step- daughter of the Government servant and wholly dependent on him, but does not include a child or step-child who is no longer in any way dependent on the Government servant or of whose custody the Government servant has been deprived by or under any law (iii) any other person related, whether by blood or marriage to the Government servant or to the wife or husband of the Government servant, and wholly dependent on the Government servant. Further, you may also refer to DoPT OM No. 11013/4/2016-Estt.A-III dated 20.07.2016 regarding definition of Members of Family in the context of Rule 4 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is self-explanatory and available in public domain at https://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02est/11013_4_2016_Estt_A_III.pdf."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.02.2025.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Rohit Kumar, CPIO and Vishwanath Dwivedi, CPIO and Chiranjeev Kumar, Section Officer, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the clarification regarding any proposal or policy regarding DNA tests to be conducted for government employees and as to whether the lack of information with the CPIO implied "no" as an answer to his query raised in RTI application.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the queries raised by the appellant are speculative and in the nature of seeking clarification, which are outside the purview of definition of "information" prescribed under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIO contended that the Appellant has been consistently filing repetitive and frivolous RTI applications using unparliamentary language against the officials.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate response has been given by the CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, keeping in view the nature of hypothetical and clarificatory questions which can be answered in the form of 'Yes' or 'No' and cannot be addressed in the form of material records as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information CIC/DOP&T/A/2025/609359 Page 5 of 6 which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."

In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO. Furthermore, the Appellant is advised to refrain from using foul and unparliamentary language in his RTI applications in future 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: 10.03.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, RTI Cell, North Block, New Delhi - 110001

2. Naresh Sharma CIC/DOP&T/A/2025/609359 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)