Central Information Commission
Kumar Saurabh vs Energy Efficiency Services Limited ... on 20 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584
CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747
Kumar Saurabh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
.....निकायर्कर्ाग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Energy Efficiency Services Ltd.,
6th Floor, NFL Building,
Core - III, SCOPE Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025
Date of Decision : 19.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeal/complaint are clubbed together as the
Appellant/complainant is common, subject-matter is similar in nature and
hence, are being disposed of through a common order.
[The instant matter is listed for hearing on priority basis in compliance with
the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C)
No. 15461/2025. Operating portion of which is reproduced below:
"5. The Central Information Commission (CIC) is requested to make an
effort to endeavour to accommodate the said request and decide the
second appeal and connected complaint as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of three months from today."]
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584
CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 1 of 26
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584
CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 08.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.09.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"Please provide the complete information (note-sheets, correspondences etc.) regarding:
i. the status and disposal of my Representation titled as '(i) Request for consideration of Promotion Eligibility to E-7A Grade w.e.f 01.10.2020.
Dated:23.07.2021' which was movement in E-Office File in around July- Oct'21;
ii. is there any notification for introduction of E-7A Grade apart from EESL Promotion Policy, 2017? If yes, please provide the copy;
iii. initiation, concurrence(s), approval of sealed envelope proceedings regarding Promotion Interview commenced on 01.12.2021 of undersigned in absence of any Vigilance Proceedings/issuance of Charge- Sheet on that date and the copy of rule, policy under which it was done;
iv. initiation, approval of sealed envelope proceedings regarding Promotion Interview commenced on 05.01.2023 of undersigned;
v. Documents supplied to the members of DPC commenced on 01.12.2021 & 05.01.2023 for taking the decision;
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 2 of 26 vi. Note-sheet of approval etc. and Rule Position under which there was non-opening of sealed envelope beyond the period of 2 Years from the Date of first DPC beginning from 01.12.2021 till 30.11.2023;
vii. reports, PMS (Fy 20 to 24), DPC Meeting Minutes etc. and Assessment Marks of undersigned in interview commenced on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023 (out of Max. Marks) for promotion cycles of Oct'21, Apr'22 and Oct'22 in terms of parameters EESL Promotion Policy:
Max. Marks /Obt. Marks a. Performance Appraisal Ratings (for last 3 years) 30 ?
b. Marks for Service rendered in the Grade 20 ?
c. **DPC Marks 10 ?
Total 60 ?
**DPC Marks Parameters:
Sl. No. Parameters Maximum Max. Marks/Obt. Marks
1 Teambuilding/Leadership qualities 3 ?
2 General Conduct/Disciplinary issues in last 02 years if any3 ?
3 Award, recommendation and other mode of recognition 2 ?
4 Suitability/Seniority cum fitness 2 ?
Total Marks 10 ?
viii. Is there any respective individual Assessment sheet of individual Committee members of DPC regarding the promotion interview on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023 of undersigned? Please provide the individual assessments of Committee Members (if any) without their name;
ix. If the answer to above viii is yes, then please provide methodology to calculate the final score of the interview;
x. Please provide the coloured copy of the physical /hard sealed envelopes cover which are opened in ref. to Order of Hon'ble High Court Dated:15.05.2024;
xi. Note-sheets Approval for opening of the above opened sealed envelope(s) and declaration of Result after opening of sealed covers of undersigned;
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 3 of 26 xii. Is there any promotion from E-7 to E-7A given in sealed cover and non-sealed cover to other candidates in the promotion interviews commenced on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023; If yes provide the count no. & the break-up of marks obtained by the last promoted candidate.
xiii. Total Nos. of regular employees of EESL and how many (Only Nos.) employees do not recommended promotion in consecutive 3 Cycles like Applicant in the history of EESL?
For all above grant inspection also. Necessary annexure(s) & Case Laws attached."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant/Complainant on 08.08.2024 stating as under:
"This concerns your RTI application received in Energy Efficiency Services Ltd. (EESL) with reference number EESLT/R/E/24/00028. The response to your query is being duly furnished. The response based on the inputs provided by the deemed PIO(s) is being furnished as follows:
Response to query 1: The sealed cover was opened, and the outcome was shared with the applicant via a copy of IOM reference number EESL/HR/IOM/1371, dated June 25, 2024.
Response to query 2: Yes, it was introduced in Recruitment Policy in 2016. The copy is enclosed as Annexure -A. Response to queries 3, 4, and 5: The information sought cannot be provided under Clause 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act as it is held in a fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure.
Response to query 6: The note sheet copy cannot be provided under Clause 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act as it is held in a fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure.
Rule position:
Clause 7.2.3 of the Promotion Policy is quoted as follows: "In the event of delay in the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, vigilance inquiry or criminal prosecution, on serious allegations of corruption, bribery or similar grave misconduct including moral CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 4 of 26 turpitude, fraud etc. the delay not being attributable to the charged employee, and the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution, against the employee concerned, are not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first DPC which kept its findings in respect of the employee in the sealed cover, the appropriate authority may review the case of the employee, provided he is not under suspension, and consider and order promotion of employee on ad-hoc basis, provided his case was recommended by DPC keeping in view the totality of the case, the availability of vacancy etc. The order of promotion should make it clear that the promotion is purely on an ad- hoc basis till further orders, and it confers no right on the employee for regular promotion and that the Competent Authority reserves the right to cancel/revoke the ad-hoc promotion or to revert, at any time the employee to the post from which he was promoted on ad-hoc basis, without any formal proceedings."
Response to query 7: The assessment marks of Shri Kumar Saurabh for the three promotion cycles are as follows:
Sl.No. Factors Maximum Marks for Marks for Marks for Marks October, April, October, 2021 cycle 2022 2022 Cycle Cycle i Performance 20 20 20 20 Appraisal Ratings (for last 2 years) ii Marks for 20 10 10 12 service rendered in the Grade iii ** DPC Marks 20 13.83 05 05 Total 43.83 35 37 * DPC marks parameters: No breakup is available. Total marks with available breakup shared above.
Response to queries 8: Individual assessment sheets of individual committee members are not there.
Response to query 9: Not applicable in view of response to query 8.
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 5 of 26 Response to queries 10 and 11: The information sought cannot be provided under Clause 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act as it is held in a fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure.
Response to query 12: The count is as follows:
October, 2021 (E7 to E7A):
Sl. No. of due No. of Result kept Nos. of
No. employees employees in sealed employees
recommended cover not
for promotion recommended
for promotion
1 7 2 2 3
April 2022 and October 2022 (E7 to E7A):
Sl. No. of due No. of Result kept Nos. of
No. employees employees in sealed employees
recommended cover not
for promotion recommended
for promotion
1 7 4 2 1
Under the RTI Act's section 8 (1) (j), marks of other promoted candidates cannot be provided.
Response to query 13: Data in this format has not been maintained since the beginning of EESL."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 23.09.2024, held as under:
"Reply to point no. b (i): With reference to point (Re: RTI Query i), Response of the CPIO is in order.
Reply to point no. b (ii): With reference to point (Re: RTI Query ii), Response of the CPIO is in order. Copy of Annexure A is enclosed.
Reply to point no. b (iii): With reference to point (Re: Queries iii, iv, and
v), the documentation sought contains information pertaining not only to CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 6 of 26 the appellant but also to other employees. The information related to the appellant cannot be separated from that of others. Therefore, the request is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as the information is held in a fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure.
With reference to point (Re: Query vi), the response of the CPIO is in order.
Reply to point no. b (iv): With reference to point (Re: RTI Query vii), the documentation sought contains information pertaining not only to the appellant but also to other employees. Information related to the appellant cannot be severed. Hence, the same is exempted under Section 8 1 (e) of RTI act as the same is held under fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure.
Reply to point no. b (v): With reference to point (Re: RTI Query x), the same does not fall under the definition of information under RTI Act With reference to point (Re: RTI Query xi), the documentation sought contains information pertaining not only to the appellant but also to other employees. Information related to the appellant cannot be severed. Hence, the same is exempted under Section 8 1 (e) of RTI act as the same is held under fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure.
Reply to point b (vi): With reference to point (Re RTI Query xii), response of the CPIO is in order.
Reply to point b (vii): With reference to point (Re RTI Query xiii), total no. of Regular employees in EESL as on date: 223 Nos. Rest, the response of the CPIO is in order.
Reply to point b (viii): In view of the above, the permission of your request for inspection of the documents is declined."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and the Complaint.
5. A written submission filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Thakur, CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for reference:
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 7 of 26 "Following is our written submission in the matter as referred to in the subject line:
1) The CPIO furnished an orderly response dated August 7, 2024, bearing internal tag M-1196, providing all possible reasonable information relating to the appellant's own promotion matter. The information material that would jeo pardise service-related information of other employees was withheld.
2) The EESL RTI First Appeal Authority has affirmed the response of the CPIO and provided further justification for the withholding of parts of information in the CPIO's response through their letter dated September 23, 2024, bearing number EESLT/A/E/24/00007/3579.
3) Therefore, as this pertains to the service matter of this employee {also RTI applicant), and since the disclosure of withheld information may ultimately invade the service-related privacy of other employees, and that the EESL's RTI First Appellate Authority has also endorsed this approach, the CPIO's action is bona fide and free from infirmity."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/ Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Thakur, CPIO along with Shri Darpan Mago, Deputy Manager (PR), Shri Vineet Taneja, Head (HR) and Shri Mahesh Sharma, DGM (HR) all present in person.
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.12.2024 & 08.12.2024 is not available on record. On a query from the Commission, the parties affirmed receipt of the copy of original Second Appeal and Complaint from the Appellant/Complainant.
7. The Appellant/Complainant at the outset submitted that the genesis of instant matters is denial of his entitled promotion to Grade E 7A - post of General Manager despite fulfilling all the eligibility criteria from 2021. He stated that his results of DPC were placed in a sealed envelope despite the fact that neither any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the date of DPC meeting nor was any charge-sheet served on him till that date. As regards arguments to this Second Appeal and Complaint, he added that he has CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 8 of 26 filed a detailed written submission on the CIC's portal and prayed the Commission to take the same on record. Prayer allowed. During hearing, the Appellant/Complainant reiterated the contents of his written submission dated Nil which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"Written Arguments/Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant & Complainant in Counter to the One Page Written Submission by CPIO, EESL in Case No. CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 (copy received on 12.11.2025/10:05 am) Other concurrently Applicable Statutes: Civil Procedure Code & Article 141 of the Constitution of India
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2024 with his employer EESL under instituted administrative RTI Mechanism seeking copy of specific information and inspection relating to his promotion-assessment records and connected HR processes & policy under Section 6 of the RTI Act. Being similarly situated, while pressing his RTI Application Appellant reliance on mainly on the binding precedent of judicial authorities of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Division Bench) in Case of LPA 734/2018; 22nd March 2022 Union Of India Versus Central Information Commission & Anr. (ANNEXURE-1) Page 10-16 of Second Appeal.
2. It is established on record that settled position of law is that the promotion related records can be disclosed and supplied under RTI Act to the employee having 'Locus Standi' as a candidate in that process carried out by the employer. But the Respondent's shown no respect to the authority of Division Bench of Delhi High Court as the above Case Law was also enclosed with RTI Application. If there would have been compliance to the authority of Hon'ble Delhi High Court by Respondent's, then there would not be First & Second Appeal and no expensive legal remedy (legal cost & expense around Rs.50,000/-) Writ in Delhi High Court to have early hearing of Second Appeal and Complaint before CIC need to be resorted to. And the information sought and qualified for disclosure in the RTI Reply Dated:08.08.2024 does not get delayed in disclosure by more than 1.25 Years and continuing till date. (arising the need of invocation of Section 20(1) of RTI Act).
3. CPIO's reply dated 08.08.2024 was incomplete, misleading and evasive, failing to provide the requested promotion process related record & information without 'reasonable cause' maliciously referencing and attempting escape primarily seeking escape and obstruction of information under Section 8(1)(e) and the 8(1)(j) to evade and suppress the record/information without any legal basis.
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 9 of 26
4. The Respondent's miserably failed to establish and do not have a reasonable cogent answer on record regarding the question (ref. queries iii, iv, v, vi, x, xi &xii of RTI & its Reply) "...What is the basis of the evasive and malicious plea that the Promotion Related Information / Records of Appellant cannot be given to him as it is held in fiduciary capacity..."
The Respondent's does not supply any information/record regarding the query no. iii & iv &vi in form of note-sheets regarding initiation, concurrence and approval of sealed envelope procedure without any disciplinary proceeding against him on 01.12.2021 in reference to promotion process of Appellant. All this amounts to illegal playing with the career of Appellant and mockery of RTI and other administrative laws as under principles of Natural Justice, 1 Appellant has full right to have access to that record which prejudice and injure him badly without any iota of fault of him. The Respondent's have not supplied any information/record Reports, PMS-Performance Appraisal Reports, DPC Minutes etc. regarding query vii. The Respondents have made complete mockery of the RTI Act as regarding query x-sealed envelope, CPIO & Deemed PIO refusing it under 8(1)(j) and FAA is surprisingly saying it's not the information under RTI Act (Page 78 of Second Appeal). The Respondent's in response to Query i are referring IOM Dated:25.06.2025 (Page 120 of Second Appeal) whereas the said IOM no-where refers to my representation/grievance Dated:23.07.2021.
5. The advertent vagueness and malicious intent to defeat the whole principle of reasonableness, fairness and transparency is to the extent that the response to RTI only mentions "...it is held in a fiduciary capacity and does not warrant disclosure..."
The RTI Response grossly and miserably failed to establish and mention the perspective and references to the purporting plea of fiduciary capacity.
6. Even if for an instance, if the plea of fiduciary capacity is considered and believed then the Respondent(s)'s plea of fiduciary capacity itself goes against them undisputedly as it is a settled position of law that the fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the beneficiary ,and use good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. (As mentioned on Page No.6 of Second Appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the matter of CBSE & Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors in [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] referred by Hon'ble CIC in its Decision Dated:20.09.2016 in File No : CIC/ RM/A/2014/003933-AB in CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 10 of 26 the Case of Maj Mahoharan J Vs. Central Public information Officer). And without an iota of doubt the beneficiary is the Appellant so the Respondent's plea of fiduciary capacity to suppress information/record from Appellant lacks merit apparently, with sole malicious intent to suppress information.
7. Based on the above, it is apparent that the claim of CPIO at Sr. No.1 in his written submission Dated:11.11.2025 copy received on 12.11.2025 to Appellant and Complainant, mentioning that all possible reasonable information relating to the appellant's own promotion matter has been provided lacks truth with the sole intent to have prejudice against the Appellant moreover, it is completely in contrast to the original instance (Information cannot be given) taken by the Respondent's in their Response Dated: 08.08.2024 as evident from above. Hence, it's only a misleading hide and seek / flip-flop tactics before CIC to mislead and cover up their illegality under the RTI Act of suppression of information without plausible and reasonable cause.
8. Rather the statement in the Written Submission received on 12.11.2025 that 'the information material that would jeopardize service-related information of other employees was withheld' is without any legal basis as it is not covered under any of the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Here, it is to be noted that Section 8 is qualified by a proviso which reads as follows:
".............provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
9. Further on their statement in preceding paragraph, the Respondent(s) are obligated to answer before Hon'ble CIC-a valid question arises from legislative intent and objective of RTI Act to promote transparency and accountability.
"...If everything is fair and transparent as per process in the record/note sheets/correspondences of Promotion Process, how its disclosure and supply will jeopardize the service-related information (more precisely promotion related) of other employees... and why it has to be withheld in transparency at large hence public interest?"
Even the Hon'ble High Courts held that the Promotion related information e.g. Comparative marks and its break-up needs to be displayed/disclosed on internet/intranet of Department.
10. Moreover, on 28.04.2009 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 3845/2007 Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central Information Commission uphold the CIC Direction to publish the information of all its employees, the established current practice, preferably on the internet in keeping with Section 4(1) of the Act to CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 11 of 26 promote transparency and fairness under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act like UPCS publishes "...Section 4(1)(b) mandates that public authorities proactively publish detailed information within 120 days of the act's enactment, including their organization, functions, duties, powers of officers, and decision-making processes..."
11. Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.9648 of 2021 Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. Public Information Officer and Registrar & Ors. held in a matter of recruitment that the disclosure of Marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, typing test and interviewers does not constitute any exempted information or did not effect the confidentiality of the exam so conducted, (the Court said) we must say that the approach of the District authorities in Wardha contributed to the promotion of transparency which should typically be promoted in matters of public recruitment. Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes. Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And it is settled proposition of administrative law, Promotion is a kin/mode of Recruitment, hence above is applicable to the instant Case in hand.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the above judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).2783/2025 Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr. Versus Onkar Dattatray Kalmakar & Anr.
13. Here the Public interest gathers more momentum and gravity since the deemed PIO i. e G.M(HR) and G.M(Vig.) gets their promotion from the same level of Appellant(Addl. G.M) to next level(G.M) in the Promotion Cycles in Year 2021 for which the records/information have been sought by Appellant and around the RTI filing, EESL Apps Portal(Page 121 of Second Appeal) which mentions the date of notification of Promotion Policy & Recruitment Policy/Rules have been made de-activated and now it is completely dysfunctional which amounts to nothing but destruction of information.
14. First Appeal dated 13.08.2024 was disposed of by FAA vide email dated 23.09.2024 through a non-speaking letter, merely endorsing the CPIO's & Deemed PIO stand, without hearing the Appellant or recording reasons grossly in violation to (i) Office Memorandum No. 1/32/2013-IR Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi Dated: the 28th November, 2013 Subject:
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 12 of 26 Guide on the Right to Information Act, 2005 - updated Version under heading Disposal of Appeal categorically mentions that "6. While disposing off first appeals, the first Appellate Authorities should act in a fair and judicious manner. It is very important that the order passed by the first appellate authority should be a detailed and speaking order, giving justification for the decision arrived at. "
(ii) DoPT OM No. 1/3/2008-IR dated 25th April, 2008 "Disposal of Appeal 38.
Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see to it that the justice is not only done but is should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order given justification for the decision arrived at."
(iii) Hon'ble Central Information Commission in case of Kushal Saha vs National Building Construction ... on 13 September 2019 ".............It was also noted that FAA had not acted in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care............."
15. That Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Division Bench) in Case of LPA 734/2018; 22nd March 2022 Union of India Versus Central Information Commission & Anr.
"....17. This Court is of the opinion that the expression 'human rights' cannot be given a narrow or pedantic meaning. It does not refer to the rights of the accused alone. Human rights have been used for a variety of purposes, from resisting torture and arbitrary incarceration to determining the end of hunger and of medial neglect. In fact, the human rights are both progressive and transformative. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NON-SUPPLY OF THE INFORMATION/ DOCUMENTS IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION AS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME RESPONDENT NO.2 WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AGITATE HER RIGHT TO PROMOTION.
18. It is settled law that employees have a legitimate expectation of promotion. It is not the case of the Appellant that its employees and officers cannot file legal proceedings to air their grievances with regard to service conditions and wrongful denial of promotions. The intent of service jurisprudence at the level of any establishment/organization is to promote peace and harmony and at the level of the society, the objective is to promote human rights. If employees of an establishment cannot agitate their CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 13 of 26 grievances before judicial forums, these organizations/establishments may become autocratic.
19. In fact, RTI Act is a tool which facilitates the employees and officers in airing their grievances systematically. According to Statement of Objects and Reasons, the intent and purpose of RTI Act is to secure access to information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. It is said that 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant' and RTI Act promotes the said concept. Consequently, both service and RTI laws 'act like a safety valve in the society'..."
16. The main intent behind the suppression of information is to prevent the Appellant and Complainant from effectively pursuing his grievance regarding the promotion as Appellant & Complainant is continuously mentally harassed, victimized and similarly situated to the Petitioner in the Case Law (DHC LPA 734/2018) referred in preceding Paragraph and Information Seeker in Case Law of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 3845/2007 Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central Information Commission as briefed below:
(i) 01.10.2020-Apellant became eligible for promotion as per Schedule 1 of EESL Promotion Policy, 2017.
(ii) June-July 2021-Appellant not called for promotion interview in Apr'21 cycle despite meeting eligibility for promotion from Addl. G.M to General Manager.
(iii) 23.07.2021-Waiting for 3 months, Appellant represented/grievance/ Complaint to HR and received assurance of promotion consideration in the Oct'21 cycle with retrospective effect from 01.10.2020 accepting the representation of Petitioner.
(iv) 01.12.2021-Appellant called for promotion interview by DPC. But Appellant came to know that 'Outcome of DPC qua Appellant was kept in Seal Cover without any disciplinary proceeding and even no formal information/notice with regard to that was given to Appellant.
(v) 08.03.2022-A False, Frivolous and conspired Charge-sheet Dated:08.03.2022 was issued as the Appellant being victimized for his genuine Complaint/grievance raised Dated:23.07.2021 which had been taken as a grudge/vendetta by HR and Vigilance Department and marked for lesson to the Appellant.
(vi) 05.01.2023-Appellant again called promotion interview by DPC.
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 14 of 26
(vii) 22.05.2023-Appellant challenged the Disciplinary Proceedings issued through Charge-sheet Dated:08.03.2022 through W.P.(C) 7070 of 2023 with violation of Natural Justice, malice with pre-judgement and bias as one of the grounds.
(viii) 05.01.2024-Hon'ble Delhi High Court kept the purported Inquiry Officer's brief/ Report 'in abeyance'(stay).
(ix) 15.05.2024-Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed for opening of sealed covers and grant of ad-hoc promotion to Petitioner as per rules and entitlement.
(x) 25.06.2024-IOM Ref. No. EESL/HR/IOM/1371 Dated: 25.06.2024 issued by Deemed PIO (Head/G.M(HR) mentioning that the Appellant is 'Not Promoted' without any supporting record and reasoned & speaking order lacking complete transparency and fairness, which is the cause of this instant RTI.
(xi) 10.07.2024- All above non-transparency, unfairness & mental harassment and agony by Respondent's pushed the Appellant to invoke his constitutional Right to Information, Appellant filed the RTI Application with CPIO, EESL to seek the record regarding the above Promotion Process.
(xii) 08-09.12.2024-Not getting satisfactory replies amounting to advertent obstruction of information from CPIO & FAA, Appellant filed the Second Appeal & Complaint to Hon'ble CIC.
(xiii)09.10.2025-Hon'ble Delhi Court in W.P(C) 15461 of 2025 vide its Order Dated: 09.10.2025 considering the peculiar circumstances and suffering of Petitioner in pursuing his grievance related to promotion process (for which W.P(C) 4481of 2025 is also filed) and its time essence, requested the Hon'ble CIC to list and adjudicate the Second Appeal and Complaint as expeditiously as possible. Hence the same is listed for 17.11.2025 at 1:00 p.m. & 1:05 p.m. at CIC.
17. All the above, constitutes an unreasonable refusal of information, violation of provisions of RTI Act, natural justice and deliberate suppression and destruction of information, in gross disregard of binding judicial precedents.
18. The personal detriment by Appellant & Complainant due to this victimization and obstructive denial of information, is apart from continuous mental suffering, harassment and agony due to which he is under constant medication of ailments BP, Anxiety, Glucose and Cholesterol etc. from last more than 4 Years apart from retina and nerve problem in the eyes, the legal fees and other Costs associated with the issue ,having similar situation to Case Law Date of Decision: 24th July, 2024. + W.P.(C) 4622/2019 PIO, RP CELL, CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 15 of 26 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR "...23. Thus, while the CIC possesses the authority to award compensation to information seeker, it is imperative that such compensation directly correlates with the personal detriment experienced by the complainant-- Respondent No. 2 in this case. Awarding compensation based on losses suffered by parties other than the complainant stretches beyond the intended scope of Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, given the consequential financial losses borne by Respondent No. 2, the compensation of INR 50,000 is deemed reasonable and just even if it is directed to be payable exclusively to Respondent No. 2. In the opinion of the court, even if the losses suffered by individuals other than the complainant/Respondent No. 2 is not factored in, compensation of INR 50,000/- is justified. This amount accounts for the financial losses incurred by Respondent No. 2, including parking charges, legal fees, and other costs associated with pursuing the issue following the denial of information by the Petitioner..."
Prayer(s) In view of the above submissions, the Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
1. Allow the Second Appeal and direct disclosure of complete information (note-sheets, correspondence, DPC minutes, PMS records, copy of sealed envelopes and related documents etc.) along with facilitation for inspection at a mutually convenient date and time.
2. Direct filing of affidavit by the CPIO & Deemed PIO regarding compliance of CIC confirming completeness, correctness of information as per the ruling in Dilip Joshi v. NHAI (supra)before CIC.
3. Allow the Complaint and Grant Suitable Costs and Compensation and any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice and transparency in favour of Appellant and Complainant."
8. The Appellant/Complainant summed-up his arguments by stating the information has malafidely not furnished by the CPIO in toto to stonewall his right to seek justice from the Court of Law. He further submitted that invocation of Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act in response to his RTI application is not applicable as he is an affected party considered by the DPC. Further, if for the time being the exemption claimed by the CPIO is accepted, then too the same is not applicable in totality as the information concerning his own matter can be severed and provided to him by masking the details and identifying CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 16 of 26 particulars of third parties under Section 10 of the RTI Act. He prayed the Commission that the concerned Respondents should be penalized under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and an appropriate compensation should be awarded to him for the detriment suffered by him for pursuing the case before the Hon'ble Court of Law.
9. The Respondent by placing reliance on his written submission and initial reply stated that point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been provided to the Appellant at initial stage. He further pleaded that Appellant/Complainant has already sought similar information in his sub-
judice Writ Petitions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Respondent added that the Appellant/Complainant is doing forum shopping and impleading Respondents in the array of parties merely to pressurize them to satisfy himself. Even otherwise, the details of other officers/candidates as included in the minutes of meetings, noting of the DPC, etc. cannot be provided to the Appellant/Complainant as the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) and Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. The oral submissions of the Respondent in response to RTI application pointwise was as under -
• Point No i: The action taken report on Appellant's/Complainant's representation was furnished by giving copy of an IOM reference number EESL/HR/IOM/1371 dated 25.06.2024.
• Point No. ii: Copy of recruitment policy with affirmative answer was provided to the Appellant/Complainant.
• Point No. iii, iv, v, vi, x and xi: The information sought by the Appellant/Complainant, namely, documents relating to initiation, concurrence, approval of sealed cover proceedings vis-à-vis promotion contains the details of other officers as well which are held by their organization in fiduciary. Therefore, it has been denied to the Appellant/Complainant under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. However, for point No. vi, Respondents clarified that severability of note-sheets is not possible as per Section 10 of the RTI Act, therefore, information being exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act cannot be provided to the Appellant/Complainant, however, the Rule position of promotion policy has been explained to the Appellant/Complainant with the initial reply.
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 17 of 26 • Point No. vii: The total assessment marks awarded to the Appellant/Complainant for the three promotion cycles was informed to him, however, there is no policy of break-up distribution of marks which was also informed to him.
• Point No. viii: The factum of non-availability of individual assessment marks by DPC members has been intimated to the Appellant/Complainant.
• Point No. ix: As there are no records of assessment of marks by individual DPC members, therefore, the question of methodology followed for calculation of marks does not arise. This fact was informed to the Appellant/Complainant.
• Point No. xii: The number of employees recommended, not recommended for promotion and number of total employees whose result kept in sealed covers for the period mentioned in RTI application has been supplied to the Appellant/ Complainant barring the marks of promoted candidates as the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• Point No. xiii: The complete number of all regular employees who were not granted promotion for three cycles since beginning in EESL is voluminous in nature which is not available in consolidated form. This fact was also informed to the Appellant/Complainant.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties at the length and perusal of the records observes that the core contention of the Appellant/Complainant in the instant Second Appeal and Complaint revolves around the issue of non-receipt of his entitled promotion to Grade 7A despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria and putting the outcome of his DPC in a sealed cover from 2021 which led him to the filing of RTI application. On the other hand, the Respondent claimed that point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information barring the information pertaining to other promote officers has been provided to the Appellant/Complainant by the CPIO and later by the FAA while disposing his First Appeal. Here, the Commission noted that reply given by the replying Respondents (except for point No. ii, vi, viii, ix and xiii of RTI application) is CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 18 of 26 not very cogent and largely fails to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act on the following counts -
a) For point No. i: The Appellant/ Complainant has sought the action taken report on his representation dated 23.07.2021 with reference to consideration of his promotion eligibility to E 7A Grade w.e.f. 01.10.2020. In response to which, the Respondent explained that outcome has been informed to the Appellant/Complainant vide IOM reference number EESL/HR/IOM/1371 dated 25.06.2024. Here, for the sake of clarity, contents of said letter dated 25.06.2024 is reproduced below:
"This is with reference to the Order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 7070 of 2023. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the sealed cover of the DPC Proceedings w.r.t. to Sh. Kumar Saurabh, AGM(Contracts) (Emp. No 1000004) has been opened for the DPCs held on 01.12.2021 and 05.01.2023. The outcome of the DPC has been tabulated below:
Sl. No Emp. No. Emp. Name Date of DPC
Consideration Recommendation
1 10000004 Kumar 01.10.2021 Not Promoted
Saurabh
2 01.04.2022 Not Promoted
3. 01.10.2022 Not Promoted
The above is for your information. A compliance affidavit in this regard may kindly be filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
A bare perusal of this letter shows that it was a mere compliance of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order dated 15.05.2024 on directions of which the sealed envelope of Appellant/Complainant was opened indicating the factum of his non-promotion which he was already aware of and for which he gave the referred representation. It is a common practice for the DPC to record their findings either as 'fit' or as 'unfit' without actually recording 'promoted' or 'not promoted', for that call is taken by the authority competent to consider the DPC minutes along with other relevant facts. Thus, there is an apparent denial, which is bad. Moreover, vigilance CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 19 of 26 clearance certificate (VCC) is not withheld unless charge-sheet has been served prior to the date & time of case consideration and mere contemplation is not a ground for withholding the same. Similarly, in case of criminal proceedings, unless charges are framed by the trial court, VCC cannot be withheld. Further, no final outcome of the representation of the Appellant/Complainant has been informed to him. Hence, it is beyond reasonable doubt that reference of this letter dated 25.06.2024 is merely an eyewash and not an adequate answer this query of RTI application which appears to be deliberate.
b) At Point No. iii, iv, v, x and xi of RTI application: The denial of information by the Respondent on these points under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act is not justified as the Appellant/Complainant being his own employee is entitled to know the relevant information regarding initiation, concurrence and approval of sealed envelope proceedings in his own promotion case at least for the matter concerning himself. The blanket denial of information is against the spirit of the RTI Act. The CPIO is expected to have applied their mind and should have invoked Section 10 of the RTI Act for masking/severing that portion of information which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act and should have supplied the remaining information related to Appellant/Complainant. However, the Respondents have failed to discharge their duties in true spirit of the RTI Act which prima facie appears intentional. Here, the Commission would also like to invite attention of the Respondents towards a judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled A.S. Mallikarjunaswamy vs. SIC & Ors., W.P. No. 23695 of 2022 dated 22.08.2023 where it was held as under -
"...5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in contending that unless the service particulars of the persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI application are furnished, he will not be in a position to work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This aspect has not animated the impugned order and therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in placing reliance on the Government Order dated 02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for granting relaxation of service CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 20 of 26 conditions relating to NC: 2023: KHC:29928 reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for, becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of said Government Order...."
c) Point No. vii: The reply is incomplete as it is not acceptable that break- up of marks are not awarded to the candidates although each item is mentioned separately in the promotion policy and instead only total marks are awarded. It defies commonsense logic because it is not normal whereas such a practice is not witnessed in similar matters of other Government organizations particularly when it involves their HR Department.
d) Point No. xiii: The partial denial of marks of promoted candidates under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act is untenable. Here, it is noteworthy that earlier the denial of information regarding the marks secured by the selected candidates used to be upheld by the Commission in previous decisions. However, the situation has changed with the recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai on 11.11.2024 in the case titled Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.9648 OF 2021) dated 11.11.2024. Thus, the replying CPIO cannot be faulted for its initial reply per se.
It may not be out of place to mention that the confidence in the selection process would be boosted by disclosing the names of the selected candidates and the marks obtained by them, if any. Transparency and accountability would be promoted by such disclosure. The disclosure of the list of selected candidates cannot be said to be purely personal information, the disclosure of which has direct relationship to public activity and interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. In any event, the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Such disclosure would promote transparency and accountability and dispel the lingering doubts about wrongdoings. Such disclosures would strengthen the promotion/recruitment process by boosting public confidence in it.
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 21 of 26 Further, the Commission would like to invite attention of the Respondent towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO.9648 OF 2021) dated 11.11.2024, wherein the Court has made the following observations:
"....27. In this case, we are concerned with a selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court at Pune. Essentially, this is a process by which applications were invited from all eligible candidates by issuing a public advertisement. In that sense, this public process must be transparent and above board. The marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be "personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest". Furnishing such information would also not cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy.
28. The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Since the selection process for Junior Clerks at the District Court in Pune was essentially a public activity which commenced with public advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates, we do not think that the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates participating in such a process would amount to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Given that such selection processes must be transparent and above board, it would be in the public interest to disclose such information rather than withhold it and allow any doubts about the process (however unjustified such doubts may be) to linger.
xxx xxx xxx
51. Since we have found that the disclosure of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, typing test and interviewers did not constitute any exempted information or did not affect the confidentiality of the exam so conducted, we must say that the approach of the District authorities in Wardha contributed to the promotion of transparency which should typically be promoted in matters of public recruitment. Withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, however unreasonable, to linger, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 22 of 26 public recruitment processes. Regarding RTI, it is repeatedly asserted that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
52. Therefore, though the Wardha disclosure may not be binding precedents, we still think there was nothing wrong with the District Authorities at Wardha making such disclosures. By making such disclosures, the district authorities at Wardha cannot be said to have breached or acted in ignorance of the provisions in Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act or Rule 13(e) of the Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules) 2009 or instructions no.19 issued to the candidates in the advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk."
11. Taking into counts the above facts and circumstances, the malice on the part of the replying Respondents including deemed CPIOs who themselves are a part of HR Department of EESL cannot be ruled out. The Commission is of the opinion that such kind of vague and misleading reply by the Respondents to the Appellant/Complainant ignoring the fact that he was their own employee and still serving, who is running from pillar to post to get justice and his entitled promotion itself shows that there is something amiss which can be seen from the naked eyes. Further, the then FAA has also failed to discharge his duty well under RTI Act by simply upholding the reply of the CPIO without applying his own mind and not passing a reasoned order. It depicts that this case has been badly handled by the replying Respondents by causing unwarranted obstruction in facilitating the information to the Appellant/Complainant ostensibly to deny him from exercising his right to seek judicial remedy from the Court of Law. Thus, prima facie the denial of information by the replying Respondents is with a mala fide intent.
12. Having observed as above, the Commission finds these matters as fit cases for interference and initiating penalty proceedings against the concerned CPIOs and FAA in his capacity as deemed PIO. Accordingly, Shri Santosh Kumar Thakur, CPIO, Shri Darpan Mago, Deputy Manager (PR), Shri Vineet Taneja, Head (HR), Shri Mahesh Sharma, DGM (HR) in the capacity of replying deemed CPIOs and Shri Shankar Gopal, concerned FAA in the capacity of deemed CPIOs are show caused as to why penalty proceedings as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against them for flouting the provisions of the RTI Act. Shri Sanotsh Kumar Thakur, the present CPIO is given responsibility to CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 23 of 26 serve a copy of this order as well as the show-cause notices to all the concerned deemed CPIOs and secure their written explanations as well as their attendance on the next date of hearing. Written explanation of the CPIOs should reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. Further, the respondent, Shri Santosh Kumar Thakur, present CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of point Nos. i, iii, iv, v, vii, x, xi and xiii of RTI application and provide the complete information to the Appellant/Complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, free of cost, within four weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order. In doing so, the respondent is at the liberty to invoke section 5 (4) of the RTI Act, if necessary.
14. In addition to above, the Respondent is further directed to afford another opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application only, on a mutually decided date and time within eight weeks' from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply him a list of files connected pertaining to this RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to him upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules.
15. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
16. For point No. ii, vi and xii of RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO as the same was found to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office at the relevant time and hence, he/she is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. In this regard, the Commission would like to refer a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], wherein the Court has held as under:
CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 24 of 26 "11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
17. Further, the Commission finds it pertinent to address the issue raised by the Appellant for awarding compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, since the Appellant/Complainant prime facie established that he has suffered a financial loss and also hardships due to inaction of the Respondent.
Hence, the Appellant/Complainant is advised to file his detailed quantum of claim for compensation supported by necessary documents before the Commission with a copy marked to the Respondent, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receipt of the claim from the Appellant/Complainant, the Respondents are directed to file their reply to the Commission within 4 weeks, with a copy marked to the Appellant/Complainant.
The appeal/complaint are reserved for further orders.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Copy To:
The FAA, Energy Efficiency Services Ltd., 6th Floor, NFL Building, Core - III, SCOPE Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003 CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 25 of 26 CIC/EESLP/A/2024/654584 CIC/EESLP/C/2024/654747 Page 26 of 26 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)