Central Information Commission
Narender Lal Dungroth vs Cabinet Secretariat on 18 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/634243
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CABST/C/2024/634267
Shri. Narender Lal Dungroth. ..निकायतकताग /Complainant
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,
Cabinet Secretariat ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025
Date of Decision : 13.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.06.2024
PIO replied on : 10.06.2024/19.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 29.07.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 09.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"This is to bring for your kind notice and consideration that the respective cabinet secretariat has offered direct post of Deputy Field Officer (DFO) GD to 400 candidates who were not in the final list of intelligence Bureaus ACIO-2020 exam and were from reserve panel. These 400 unsuccessful candidates were posted to cabinet secretariat duties (GD) from 2022 in a phased manner without conducting any proper exam by the cabinet secretariat nor by issuing any notification. This information was revealed by the intelligence Bureau in its affidavit to Honourble High Court of Delhi on 02-11-2023 for Review Petition No.321 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 8560/2022. I would like to request the following few:
1. That on what grounds does the recruitment of DFO (Deputy Field Officer/GD) was carried without issuing any advertisement by the cabinet secretariat, which does for other hiring processes in the department?
2. Why does the department has choose the unsuccessful candidates who are from the reserve list panel of intelligence Bureau, 2020 notification of ACID-U?
Page 1
3. The cabinet secretariat did not conduct any exam for those 400 rather selected them from a reserve list of other organization without any open advertisement, why?
4. As the 400 is not a small number, why did not you consider me or the existing reserve panel of 2014-15 ACID-il notification who were been working as Immigration Assistants in IB from 2018-2021 and were more skilled & experienced?
5. Though there was a case been fried in the court on the issue of Immigration Assistants of 18 in 2022, how the respective cabinet secretariat moved with this recruitment ahead? Sir, these above questions was raised because there was no policy that had affected the previous or present recruits but only the batch of 2014-15 & 1 had personally affected with the decisions of either by the 18 or Cabinet Secretariat. Hence, approaching you for the conclusion as I had become unemployed with those decisions took by higher-ups and feel that I had been discriminated or betrayed by not considering me though I do not have any remarks and was struggling for my career/future presently. The supporting details also been attached for your reference for swift decision and action & help me kindly for an opportunity."
The CPIO, vide letter dated 10.06.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: The subject matter of the information sought pertains to Cabinet Secretariat (SR). Accordingly, the afore-mentioned application is transferred to Cabinet Secretariat (SR) under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat (SR) vide letter dated 19.06.2024 replied as under:
"..This is with reference to your application bearing registration No.CABST/R/E/24/00380 dated 07.06.2024 which has been transferred to this Secretariat by Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan vide their OM. No. CABST/R/E/24/00380-RTI dated 10.06.2024 and received on 12.06.2024 under RTI Act, 2005. This is to inform that the information sought by you pertains to Intelligence and Security Organization figuring at Sl.No.2 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 vide statutory bar of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.07.2024. The FAA, Director vide order dated 29.07.2024 replied as under:-
"This is with reference to your first appeal bearing registration No. CABST/A/E/24/00061 dated 12.07.2024 which has been transferred to this Secretariat by Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan vide their OM No.CABST/A/E/24/00061-RTI dated 15.07.2024 and received on 16.07.2024 under RTI Act, 2005.
2. I have checked the records. CPIO has rightly observed vide his letter No. 18/27/2024/RTI/E III-505 dated 19.06.2024 that statutory bar of Page 2 Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 would be fully applicable to the Intelligence and Security Organization figuring at Sl. No.2 in the Second Schedule of the Act. Moreover, the information sought for does not relate to any human rights violation or corruption."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 04.08.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is under:
"...It is most respectfully submitted that:
1. The Appellant, Shri Narender Lal Dungroth vide his application dated 07.06.2024 (copy enclosed) which had been transferred to Cabinet Secretariat (SR) by Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan vide their O.M. dated 10.06.2024 (copy enclosed) had sought various information regarding recruitment of 400 Deputy Filed Officers (GD) in Cabinet Secretariat from the reserve panel of ACIO - II Examination-2020. Accordingly. the RTI application was forwarded to R&AW vide Cabinet Secretariat (SR) ID Note dated 12.06.2024 (copy enclosed) with the request to provide specific reply along with all relevant documents and also to intimate whether any apparent human rights violation and corruption are involved in the matter.
2. In this regard, R&AW vide their ID Note dated 18.06.2024 (copy enclosed) had inter alia submitted that R&AW being an intelligence organization is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24 of the Act, except for complaints related to corruption and human rights violation. Further, the information sought by the applicant does not fall under the purview of corruption and/or human rights violation.
3. Accordingly, CPIO vide letter dated 19.06.2024 (copy enclosed) informed the applicant that the information sought by him pertains to Intelligence and Security Organization figuring at Sl.No.2 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 vide statutory bar of sub-
section (1) of section 24 of the RTI Act subject to the conditions stipulated therein.
4. Being aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the applicant, Shri Narender Lal Dungroth, preferred his First Appeal dated 12.07.2024 (copy enclosed) which had been transferred to Cabinet Secretariat (SR) by Cabinet Secretariat, Rashrapati Bhawan vide their O.M. dated 15.07.2024 (copy enclosed). The First Appeal was forwarded to R&AW vide Cabinet Secretariat (SR) ID Note dated 19.07.2024 (copy enclosed) with the request to submit their specific para-wise reply along with all relevant documents and also to intimate with justification whether any apparent human rights violation and / or corruption are involved in the matter. In this regard, R&AW vide their ID Note dated 23.07.2024 (copy enclosed) had inter alia reiterated the exemption clause as stated in the reply of original RTI application.
Page 3
5. The FAA after going through both the RTI application and First Appeal filed by the applicant and based on the reply received from R&AW, disposed of the appeal, vide letter dated 29.07.2024 (copy enclosed), by supporting the claims of the CPIO and informed the applicant about the statutory bar of section 24(1) of RTI Act, 2005 and that it would be fully applicable to Intelligence and Security Organization figuring at Sl.No.2 in the Second Schedule of the Act. Moreover, it was also informed that the information sought for does not relate to any human rights violation and/or corruption.
6. Aggrieved further, the appellant, Shri Narender Lal Dungroth, filed Second Appeal dated nil (copy enclosed) addressed to Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner and requested to direct the concerned officials (including the CPIO, FAA) to comply with the following request on giving the required information u/c 2(f), 2(i) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005-
1) To provide the document or certified copy of the employment notification /advertisement/circular by the Cabinet Secretariat for the recruitment/hiring of 400 Deputy Filed Officer (DFO/GD) in 2022 on direct mode with No.61/6/2022-Rectt. Cell dated 30.05.2022.
ii) The information pertains to the applicant need to be disclosed & tactics of escapism need to be viewed seriously. Obstruction to information to be put under scanner u/s 20 (1) & (2).
iii) It is reiterated that the information sought solely belongs to Cabinet Secretariat and not of any other agencies. The proof of attachment been quoted for your kind reference above on the same.
7. On perusal of the above, it is submitted that R&AW being an Intelligence and Security Organization catering to the security of the nation is listed at Sl.No.2 of the Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 under sub-section (1) of section 24 of the RTI Act, both the CPIO and the FAA of Cabinet Secretariat (SR) have acted within the provision of the RTI Act, 2005 by denying the information as the matter under reference does not involve corruption and human rights violation.
8. In view of the above, prima facie, no case of corruption or human rights violation is made out against the R&AW in the instant case; both the CPIO and the FAA have acted within the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 24 of the RTI Act 2005, read with the Second Schedule to the said Act, to deny information to the applicant/appellant..."
Written submission dated 07.08.2025 has been received from the Appellant/Complainant and same has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant/Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Ms. Tanuja Anthwal, US- participated in the hearing.
Page 4 The RTI Applicant stated that the relevant information as available in their records has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct he PIO to furnish information as sought.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in tier written submission and stated that the information sought by the RTI Applicant pertains to intelligence and security organization as mentioned in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 vide statutory bar of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2024/634243 is disposed of, accordingly.
As regards the Complaint No. CIC/CABST/C/2024/634267, the Commission observes that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the Appellant/Complainant. It is noted that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant/Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Commission further observes that the Appellant/Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
Page 5 "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies. The Complaint is disposed off.
Matters are disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)