Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Siddharaju vs Defence Research And Development ... on 13 February, 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/DRADO/A/2025/104200 +
                                       CIC/DRADO/A/2025/606352

Siddharaju                                                   ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO: Electronics & Radar
Development Establishment                                ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
(LRDE), (DRDO), Bangalore

Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:

RTI : 20.11.2024            FA    : 26.12.2024               SA     : 04.02.2025

CPIO : 13.12.2024           FAO : 20.01.2024                 Hearing : 03.02.2026


The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
RTI application and have been registered twice.

Date of Decision: 12.02.2026
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application(s) dated 20.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:

➢ I am submitting this RTI application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek information regarding the verification of Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservation eligibility of Mrs. [Nagarathna D], an employee at the Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) Bangalore division of DRDO. This request CIC/DRADO/A/2025/104200 & CIC/DRADO/A/2025/606352 Page 1 of 5 aims to promote transparency and accountability in the allocation of reserved positions within government organizations. Details of Information Sought:

Inquiry Process and Findings:

1. Details of the internal inquiry conducted to verify Mrs. [Nagarathna D]'s Scheduled Tribe (ST) status and eligibility for the reserved position.

2. Procedural steps undertaken during the inquiry and the criteria used to assess the validity of her ST status.

3. Composition of the Inquiry Committee: a. Names and designations of officials who were part of the inquiry committee, if constituted.

4. Specific roles and responsibilities assigned to each committee member during the investigation.

5. Recommendations and Final Decision:

a. Any conclusions or recommendations made by the inquiry committee regarding the verification of her ST status.

6. Details of subsequent actions taken or proposed by DRDO based on the inquiry findings.

7. Documentation and Transparency:

8. Copies of any documents, reports, or official notes generated during the inquiry, excluding any information exempted under Sections 8 or 9 of the RTI Act.

9. Additional Request: If permissible under the RTI Act:

a. Please provide a copy of the caste certificate submitted by Mrs. [Nagarathna D] during her recruitment, which she used to claim reservation benefits under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. If a copy cannot be provided, kindly confirm:

b. Whether the caste certificate was verified at the time of recruitment. c. Details of the issuing authority, certificate number, and the date of issuance of the caste certificate.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter(s) dated 13.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Please refer your application dated 20 Nov 2024, received in this office on transfer from CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi vide letter No. RTI/01/6000/M/01/2024/0283 dated 27 Nov 2024, under AR No. 2024/0007 on 03/12/2024 for seeking information on the points mentioned therein. You are hereby informed that DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24(1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

Your request for information does not come under the purview of the above- mentioned provisions as on date. Therefore, information cannot be supplied under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal(s) dated 26.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order(s) dated 20.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order(s), the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal(s) dated 04.02.2025.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mahesh, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had deliberately concealed the information, although the matters pertain to allegations of fraudulent documentation submitted by a candidate, which directly constitute corruption.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed their initial replies dated 13.12.2024.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act in both the appeals. Further, perusal of the contents in the second appeal(s) reveals that the appellant has raised allegations of corruption concerning fraudulent documentation by candidate(s), however, the same has not been substantiated by any evidence. Further, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. The Appellant's attention is drawn towards the observations passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union of India [W.P. (C) 83/2014] vide its decision dated 03.02.2014, extracted below:

"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption. The Supreme Court in Kania Lal Sur Vs. Parmnidhi Sadhukhan, AIR 1957 SC 907 has held as under:-

"6. ..........However, in applying these observations to the provisions of any statute, it must always be borne in mind that the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act............"(emphasis supplied) CIC/DRADO/A/2025/104200 & CIC/DRADO/A/2025/606352 Page 4 of 5 Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, no further scope of relief lies in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are 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: 12.02.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), (DRDO), P. B. No. 9324, C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560093

2. Siddharaju CIC/DRADO/A/2025/104200 & CIC/DRADO/A/2025/606352 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)