Central Information Commission
Leishangthem Sonamani Singh vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 7 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2025/112830
Leishangthem Sonamani Singh ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Seema Suraksha Bal ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2026
Date of Decision : 06.04.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.10.2024 FA : 09.01.2025 SA : 05.04.2025
CPIO : 10.10.2024 FAO : 19.02.2025 Hearing : 02.04.2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2024 before the PIO, SSB, Hqrs., seeking the following information:
"I have the honour to state that I was dismissed from my service in connection with an allegation of offence under the ND & PS Act and now I have been acquitted from the said allegation/offence after trial and as such, on 15 July 2024, I have submitted a representation dated 15/07/2024(copy enclosed) to the Commandant of 16th Battalion SSB, Pakri, Khaira, Jamul District, Bihar but no satisfactory action has been taken up till date and as such, I would like to obtain the certified copies of the following information from your public authority.
1. Please indicate the daily progress made on the aforesaid representation so far i.e. when did said representation reach to which officer, for how long did it stay with that officer and what action did he or she take on it during that period?
2. Provide the names and designations of the officials who are responsible for dealing with the matter for responding to said representation.Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 1 of 7
3. Disclose names and designations of the officials, if any, who delayed taking action on the matter of the said representation?
4. What action would be taken against these officials for delay? Please furnish copy of the Rules/procedure for taking action against those officials who were involved in delaying the representation.
5. Copy of the responses of your good office along with action taken report to the said representation;
6. Copy of decision taken up by the competent authority on the said I representation along with the copy of the said representation indicating the side notes.
7. Whether the said representation can be considered or not? If yes, give the copy of progress report and a response along with para-wise comment. if not, please give the copy of the rules for not considering the same along with file notes sheets.
8. Copy of the appointment order, dismiss order, my service book and order for promotion to Head Constable (W/T) No.82556 along with the copy of the law and Rules applied to dismiss me from the service.
9. Copy of the documents indicating my entitlements after acquitting from the said case/offence and other retirement benefits.
10. Whether the said grievances mentioned in the representation can be redressed or not? If yes, give the copy of latest status report along with the details of information. If not, give the relevant Rules or laws or order for violating my rights.
11. Copy of the order or decision of the competent authority to dismiss me from my services along with the file note sheets."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The CPIO, DIG, SSB, Gaya responded vide reply dated 30.10.2024 as under:
"In this context, it is intimated that reply of your representation dated 10.07.2024 (Copy enclosed) against which you have now sought information under RTI Act 2005 vide your application dated 05.10.2024 has already been furnished to you by the Commandant. 16th Bn SSB vide Letter No. 1/SSB/16 in/E-I/Misc/2024/-12644 dated 10.10.2024 (Copy enclosed), seeking thereby some documents relevant in the matter from your end.
You are therefore requested to provide the documents as asked for by the Commandant, 16th Bn SSB enabling the unit to take further course of action on the matter at their and, please." [reproduced verbatim]
3. The reply dated 10.10.2024 sent by the Adjutant, 16th Bn. SSB, Jamui, Bihar is as under:
Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 2 of 7"Refer to your application dated- 10.07.2024 has been forwarded to this office with request to treating as retired on attaining the age of superannuation and grant back salary, retiral benefits including pensionary benefits. In this regard, it is intimated that you were dismissed from Govt. service on 20.04.1992 due to found possession of Heroin powder near G.M Hotel, Paona Bazar, Imphal (Manipur) and lodged complaint case No. 1/NCB/Heroin/Imp/92 dated 20.04.1992 under section 21/23 and 60 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 as informed by you though ibid application. Also, you are intimated, that now your criminal case has been finalized by the Special Court, ND&PS, Manipur at Lamphel Court Complex vide judgement/order dated 23.01.2023 vide which you have been acquitted from the charges levelled against you.
In view of above, the following documents as mentioned below are required for processing the case of your representation.
1. Appointment Order No. 4/5/Apptt/76-AP/9955-99 dated 07.02.1977 as GD(AP).
2. Appointment Order No. 26/01/PTN/C/77/912 dated 12.08.1978 as W/T (Wireless Telegraphy).
3. Promotion Order as Head Constable (W/T) for the year 1984.
4. Complaint Case No. 1/NCB/HEROIN/IMP/92 dated 20.04.1992 under sections 21/23 and 60 of the ND&PS Act, 1985.
5. Dismissal Order." [reproduced verbatim]
4. Dissatisfied with the response of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.01.2025, which was decided by the FAA's order dated 19.02.2025 with the following observation:
"2. Your appeal has been examined by this HQ and observed that you had submitted an application under RTI Act before the Dy. Inspector General Cum Central Public Information Officer, SHQ (Spl. Ops.) SSB, Gaya on 05/10/2024 and CPIO had furnished the suitable reply on 30/10/2024 to you (Copy enclosed). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply furnished by CPIO, SHQ (Spl Ops) SSB. Gaya, you submitted an appeal under RTI Act on 25/11/2024 addressed to the CPIO, FHQ SSB, New Delhi and FHQ SSB, New Delhi forwarded the same to this HQ vide Fax/ WAN Msg No.4/SSB/RTI-Cell/ Offline-RTI/2023(05)/ 539-40 dated 27/11/2024 in terms of section-6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, your appeal was examined by this HQ and found that matter did not pertain to corruption or violation Human Right, hence suitable reply was issued in the light of Section 24 of RTI Act vide this Office letter No. VIII/FTR-PTN/RTI/ Appeal/ Part file/2024/11889-91 (U/21123) dated 19/12/2024 (Copy enclosed).
3. Further, you have concealed the facts and submitted another appeal under RTI Act before FHQ SSB, New Delhi on the similar issues despite being furnished reply on 1st Appeal. However, there is no provision in RTI Act for Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 3 of 7 considering another/ similar Appeal by 1st appellate authority."
[reproduced verbatim]
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal. Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
6. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present with Mr. W. Joykumar, Advocate, through video conference. Respondent: Sh. Rajender Bharadwaj, Commandant, SSB attended hearing through video conference.
7. The Appellant was represented by his advocate who stated that his client had not been provided the desired information, in violation of provisions of the RTI Act and which has also violated his human right of enjoying retirement benefits. He further contended that the information sought relates to the Appellant and no sensitive or security issue is involved and as such the Respondent cannot claim exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
8. The PIO, SSB sent a detailed written submission/counter statement dated 30.03.2026 reiterating the above facts and adding as under:
"(i) No. 82556, Ex. HC (WT) Leishangthem Sonamani Singh submitted an application on dated 10th July, 2024 addressed to the Commandant, 16th Bn SSB requesting therein that he may be treated as retired on attending the age of superannuation and grant back salary, retiral benefits including pensionary benefits and submitted following enclosers in his support (Annexure-A/ P. No. 01 to 12): -
a) A copy of group photographs of the W.T. Training 1980-81 held at Faridabad, Haryana.
b) Photograph of Havildar L. Sonamani Singh Force No. 82556.
c) Two complaint copies dated 20/04/1992 submitted by the Intelligence Officer, NCB to the S.P. Asstt. Director, NCB, Regional Unit, Imphal along with the seizure memo.
d) A copy of the complaint case being Criminal. (COMP) case No. 222 of 1996.
e) A copy of the rejection for revocation of dismissal order issued by the D.O. SSB concerned vide No. 1/6 (4)/93-SSB (Vol-III)/10371 dated 12/07/1994.
ii) The Commandant, 16th Bn SSB vide Fax/Wan msg No. P.S./HC (Tele)/L. Sonamani Singh/16th Bn/SSB/24/10404 dated 21.10.2024 had intimated that as per application submitted by Force No. 82556, Ex. HC (WT) L. Sonamani Singh, 16th Bn SSB was found in possession of Heroin powder near G.M Hotel, Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 4 of 7 Paona Bazar, Imphal (Manipur) on 20.04.1992 and lodged complaint case No. 1/NCB/Heroin/Imp/92 dated 20/04/1992 under Sections 21/23 and 60 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. He was dismissed from Govt. service on same day (Annexure-B/P.No. 13 to 14).
On 23/01/2023, the said criminal case against Ex. HC (WT) L. Sonamani Singh, 16th Bn SSB has been finalized by the Special Court, ND&PS Manipur at Lamphel Court Complex vide judgement/order dated 23.01.2023 and passed the order that he is acquitted from all charges in this case as well as Bail bonds and surety bonds has been cancelled, seized articles are to be destroyed after lapse of limitation (Annexure-C/P.No. 15 to 22).
iv) On receiving of application/representation of the said applicant, 16th Bn SSB has traced out the office records and found that on PBR register (Pay Bill Register) for the year 1991-92, he was posted at GC Imphal (Manipur) and drawn last pay upto October, 1991 and as per PBR he was declared deserter w.e.f. 31.05.1991 (FN). Personal file in r/o the applicant had been weeded out vide 16th Bn SSB office order No. 9148 dated 03/09/2005 as intimated by 16th Bn SSB (Annexure-D/P.No. 23 to 24). Moreover, 16th Bn SSB has requested to the applicant to provide the following documents to take up the case with Higher Hqrs vide 16 Bn SSB letter No. 13612 dated 30/10/2024"
[reproduced verbatim]
9. The Respondent has also pointed out that the Appellant has also filed a Court Case No. WP (C) 776/2025 titled Leishangthem Sonamani Singh Vs UOI & 02 Ors before Hon'ble High Court Manipur for treating him as retired on attaining the age of superannuation and grant back salary, monetary benefits including pensionary benefits. The case is pending before the Hon'ble Court and next date of hearing has been fixed for 07.04.2026.
Decision
10. Upon perusal of records and hearing the averments of the parties, it is noted that the Appellant's service was terminated over three decades ago, in 1992 and during this period he had sought appropriate legal remedies from the Court of law. On being reminded that the SSB is covered under the Second Schedule of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and exempt from the purview of the RTI Act, the counsel for the Appellant has contended that his client's right to retiral benefits have been denied which amounts to violation of his human rights. Hence the case falls within the proviso clause of the Section 24 which states that any allegation of corruption or violation of human rights shall necessitate disclosure of information by even a security organisation otherwise Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 5 of 7 exempt from the purview of the RTI Act under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The Section 24 of the RTI Act reads as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organisations.
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:
Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
11. In order to decide whether the Appellant's query qualifies under the proviso clause, i.e. "violation of human rights", it is pertinent to refer to the judgment dated 16.09.2013 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Directorate General of Security and Anr. vs. Harender [W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013], wherein it was held as under:
"4. ...No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc...."
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. The aforesaid ratio was later reiterated in another judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [W.P.(C) 11092/2017], wherein the Hon'ble Court had discussed the term "human rights violation" at length, while holding inter alia as under:
"8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".
[emphasis supplied] Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 6 of 7
13. In the light of the aforementioned facts, the Commission finds no merit in the contentions of the Appellant's counsel. It is noted that the FAA had cited the provision of Section 24(1) vide order dated 19.02.2025 while the PIO had gone beyond the call of duty in answering the RTI queries with appropriate response, though he could have denied the information in terms of the Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. No further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is thus dismissed.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/ SSBAL/A/2025/112830 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)