Central Information Commission
Ira Chopra vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 18 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/DODEF/C/2025/625748
CIC/DODEF/C/2025/637372
CIC/DODEF/C/2025/638301
CIC/DODEF/C/2025/625505
CIC/DODEF/C/2025/625516
CIC/DODEF/C/2025/641776
Ira Chopra ....अपीलकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO Office of DCDA (R&D), The CPIO Office of the Controller
Metcalfe House, Delhi - 110054 General Defence Accounts, Ulan
Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt. -
110010
The CPIO JCDA R and D, Ministry of The CPIO Principal Controller
Defence, o/o DCDA R and D, Defence Account (Rsesarch &
Metcalfe House, Delhi - 110054 Development), West Block - V,
R.K.PURAM, New Delhi 110066
Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026
Date of Decision : 17.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Page 1 of 26
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
The above-mentioned complaints are clubbed together as the complainant is
common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Case Date of CPIO Reply First appeal FAA Second Appeal
No. RTI dated order dated
625748 26.05.2025 30.05.2025 NA NA 05.06.2025
637372 18.07.2025 12.08.2025 NA NA 06.08.2025
638301 14.07.2025 12.08.2025 NA NA 12.08.2025
625505 26.05.2025 29.05.2025 NA NA 03.06.2025
625516 26.05.2025 30.05.2025 NA NA 04.06.2025
641776 04.07.2024 30.07.2025 NA NA 15.09.2024
1. Second Complaint- CIC/DODEF/C/2025/625748
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"The appellant while citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through para 20 as follows:
Having regards to the submission at para 1 therein - "Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, Scientist 'F' was transferred from LASTEC to IRDE Dehradun w.e.f. 09.02.2021 and accordingly the LPC of the officer was forwarded to his Pay and Account office in Dehradun"., the CPIO is requested to please secure and provide the following from Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) / DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, Delhi: (1) Certified copy of "proof of service" of "transfer order", by hand or registered post or speed post or by email, which (proof of service) was watched with the salary bill of March 2021 and vouched before pay-
drop on the TULIP platform by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House or the designated controller authorized for this purpose at Delhi, and now relying upon which it has been claimed by Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) in terms of letter dated 19.02.2025-Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, Scientist 'F' was transferred from LASTEC to IRDE Dehradun". Above "proof of service" as available in the internal records of DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, Delhi may please be provided. If "proof of Page 2 of 26 service" is not available in internal records of DCDA (R&D), may please categorically state "not available".
(2) Certified copy of the audited version of Last Pay Certificate (LPC) of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra in Govt. of India statutory correct legal format / form R.P.R. 2/G.A.R 2 notified in GFR 2017 / Subsidiary instructions to Central Instructions to Central Govt. Accounts (Receipt and Payment Rules) with para 4 - "He/She made over the charge of the office of......on the forenoon/ afternoon of......" duly filled in & completed with details of handing over & taking over, which was watched and vouched by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House or designated controller of defence accounts at Delhi in March 2021 before pay- drop in TULIP platform, and now relying on which it is stated at para 1 "LPC of the officer was forwarded to his Pay and Accounts Office in Dehradun".
If the above audited version of LPC in Govt. of India statutory correct legal format / form R.P.R. 2 / G.A.R 2 notified in GFR 2017 / Subsidiary instructions to Central Instructions to Central Govt. Accounts (Receipt and Payment Rules) with para 4 -"He / She made over the charge of the office of......on the forenoon/ afternoon of......" duly filled in & completed with details of handing over & taking over, is not available in internal records of DCDA (R&D) or PCDA (R&D) RK Puram, may please categorically state "not available".
(3) Name and designation of the auditor who audited the LPC, which being a forged /fabricated / tailor made version, and which is now being referred by Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) at para 1 of his Letter No. DCDA/R&D/MH/Pay/RTI dated 19.02.2025 (Exhibit 3). Name and designation as available in the internal records of DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House / PCDA (R&D) R K Puram Delhi may please be provided.
(4) Name of the Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) who is the signatory of the Letter No. DCDA/R&D/MH/Pay/RTI dated 19.02.2025 (Exhibit
3).Name and designation as available in the internal records of DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House may please be provided.
(5) Certified copy of certificate of transfer of charge in GFR 16 proviso to Rule 286(1) of GFR 2017 / charge relinquishment executed between the controlling officer /reporting officer at Delhi and Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, which was watched and vouched by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi before pay-drop on the TULIP platform, and now relying upon which it has been claimed by Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) in terms of letter dated 19.02.2025 "LPC of the officer was forwarded to his Pay and Accounts office in Dehradun."
Page 3 of 26The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 30.05.2025 stating as under:
"Para1 to 19: No reply sought for; hence, no reply is Anticipated/furnished.
Para 20(1): "Proof of service of transfer order" is an administrative action and the information may be sought for direct from the unit concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 20(2): Copy of Audited version of "Last Pay Certificate (LPC)" may be sought for directly from the unit concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 20(3 to 4): No reply furnished as per Section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005, which depicts that "... information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question".
Para 21 to 23: No reply sought for; hence, no reply is anticipated /furnished."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submissions filed by the respondents:
(i) Written submissions dated 04.02.2026: The Respondent submitted that in response to RTI Application No. CGDFA/R/E/25/01766 dated 26.05.2025, the CPIO, 160 PCDA (R&D), New Delhi, vide letter dated 20.06.2025, informed the applicant that the information was not available with that office. It was further submitted that the RTI application was not found to be a case involving "life or liberty"
under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The reply was furnished after obtaining available inputs from DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House; however, since the information/documents were not available with either office, the applicant was advised to approach the concerned Unit/Office in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act. The Respondent further invited attention to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Commission dated 29.01.2024 in Complaint No. CIC/DRADO/C/2022/645408, wherein it was observed that Defence Page 4 of 26 Research and Development Organisation is included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and is exempt under Section 24(1), except in cases relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. As the information sought did not pertain to corruption or human rights violations, disclosure was not warranted. It was submitted that the present complaint, filed by the same applicant, is similarly placed. The allegation of mala fide intention or deliberate delay on the part of the CPIO was denied, and it was reiterated that all information available with the CPIO was provided within the prescribed time limit. It was also submitted that approximately 50 RTI applications/appeals have been filed by the applicant since 2024 on similar issues, leading to substantial diversion of administrative resources.
(ii) Written submissions dated 13.02.2026: The Respondent has further clarified that since the concerned officer did not join IRDE Dehradun, the question of providing DO Part II order of strength increase or joining report does not arise. The names and designations of the auditor, AAO and AO have also been disclosed. Further, it is mention that the copy of salary bills for the month of February 2021 has already been provided to the applicant (complainant). On his RTI application dated 01.06.2024 vide their letter dated 26.06.2024 and their copies enclosed again. The Respondents has categorically stated that the date of handing over and taking over charge is not available with the concerned offices.
2. Second Complaint- CIC/CGDAC/C/2025/637372 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2025 seeking the following information:
"The appellant while citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through para 20 as follows:
Certified copy of the letter (available as internal records of controllers of defence accounts) written by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House to Dr. Samir V Kamat, Secretary DD (R&D) / Chairman DRDO (being the competent authority) at any point of time during the period Page 5 of 26 20.03.2024 to 17.07.2025 (grossly 16 months) seeking "service book"
(for onward transmission thereafter by DCDA (R&D) to PCDA (R&D) RK Puram for audit), LPC w.r.t. retirement, Pension Claim, GPF Claim, leave encashment claim, gratuity claim for audit. Cadre controlling authority of defence accounts and cadre controlling administrative authority of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra function from concurrent, coordinative jurisdiction w.r.t. defence civilians. (1) Certified copy of all the follow-up letter(s) post letter stated at (1) above (available as internal records of controllers of defence accounts) written by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House to Dr. Samir V Kamat, Secretary DD (R&D) / Chairman DRDO (being the competent authority).
(2) In case no letters were sent by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House as above, please provide date on which letter as stated in (1) will be sent to Dr. Samir V Kamat, Secretary DD (R&D) / Chairman DRDO (being the competent authority) by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House."
The CPIO vide reply dated 12.08.2025 replied as under:
"Para I to l9: No information sought. Hence no reply is warranted. Para20 (1to3): DCDA (R&D) MH office has not written any letter to Dr. Samir V Kumar, Secretary DD(R&D)/Chairman DRDO at any point of time during the period 20.03.24 to 17.02.2025 seeking Service Book, LPC w.r.to retirement . Pension Claim, GPF Claim, Leave Encashment Claim, and Gratuity Claim.
Para 21 to 23: No information sought. Hence no reply is warranted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submissions filed by the complainant:
(i) Written submission dated 09.02.2026: It states that the respondents have taken a contradictory and unsustainable stand by contending that DRDO had no role to play, as the RTI application in question was never addressed to DRDO. It is further stated that the application must have been transferred by the respondents themselves. It is also submitted that the RTI application was filed on 18.07.2025 and the reply was received on 12.08.2025, i.e., after the filing of the present complaint. She has enclosed a copy of an email dated 20.06.2025 received by Mr. Anil Kumar Chopra stating that "NHRC has registered Page 6 of 26 a case no. 2628/30/4/2025 on the complaint regarding Anil Kumar Chopra"
Written submissions filed by the respondent:
(i) Written submissions dated 04.02.2026: They submitted that in response to RTI Application No. CGDFA/R/E/25/02372 dated 18.07.2025, the CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi, vide letter dated 12.08.2025, has furnished all information available with PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House, as the information was not held by the said offices. Upon scrutiny, the application was not found to fall under the "life or liberty" clause under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, and accordingly, a regular reply was furnished after obtaining inputs from DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House.
(ii) Written submission in dated 13.02.2026: The respondents stated that, DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House has not issued any letter to Dr. Samir V. Kamat, Secretary, DD (R&D) / Chairman, DRDO during the period from 20.03.2024 to 17.02.2025 seeking Service Book, LPC, or documents relating to retirement benefits including Pension, GPF, Leave Encashment or Gratuity. It is further submitted that, as per established practice, DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House does not correspond directly with the Secretary, DD (R&D) / Chairman, DRDO for such matters; rather, the concerned laboratory forwards the requisite service documents as and when required.
3. Second Complaint- CIC/CGDAC/C/2025/638301 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2025 seeking the following information:
"The appellant while citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through para 18 as follows:
(1) Post announcement of closure of LASTEC, Delhi in the year 2020, please provide month and year of receipt of last salary bill of LASTEC officials, as receipted by DCDA R&D Metcalfe House (as Page 7 of 26 per internal records of controller of defence accounts).Information as above as available in the internal records of respective controller of defence accounts may please be provided.
(2) Number of officials of LASTEC, Delhi whose name appeared in the salary bill of SSPL, Delhi (as received by DCDA R&D Metcalfe House) in the subsequent month, after their posting / attachment/joining at SSPL, Delhi and accordingly removal of their respective names from the salary bill of LASTEC, Delhi.
Information as above as available in the internal records of respective controller of defence accounts may please be provided.
(3) Number of officials of LASTEC, Delhi whose name appeared in the salary bill of INMAS, Delhi (as received by DCDA R&D Metcalfe House) in the subsequent month, after their posting/attachment / joining at INMAS, Delhi and accordingly removal of their respective names from the salary bill of LASTEC, Delhi. Information as above as available in the internal records of respective controller of defence accounts may please be provided."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 12.08.2025 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application No. CGDFA/R/E/25/02320, dated 14.07.2025, it is intimated that the case pertains to DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House and on the basis of reply received from DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House, para wise reply is as follows:-
Para 1 to 17: No information sought. Hence no reply is warranted.
Para18(a to c): The information has not been preserved in the format, which has been sought for. As per Section 7(9) of RTI Act 2005 "An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question." Again, Section 24 read with No. 20 of the Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005- DRDO organization is Page 8 of 26 exempted from Submitting Information.
Further, as per Section 8(a) of RTI Act,2005- Exempt from disclosure of information on "information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence."
Para 19 to 21: No information sought. Hence no reply is warranted."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submissions filed by the complainant:
(ii) Written submission dated 09.02.2026: It states that the RTI application was filed on 14.07.2025 and a reply was received on 12.08.2025, i.e., on the same day on which instant complaint was filed. It is further submitted that the respondents failed to provide the information within the stipulated period of 48 hours under section 7(1) of the RTI Act and therefore instant complaint was filed before the Commission. The complainant has clarified that the present complaint has not been filed on the ground of the contents or adequacy of any subsequent RTI reply. He also submitted that on his complaint, a case has been registered by the National Human Right Commission (NHRC) against the respondents.
Written submissions filed by the respondent:
(i) Written submissions dated 04.02.2026: It states that in response to RTI Application No. CGDFA/R/E/25/02320 dated 14.07.2025, the CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi, vide letter dated 12.08.2025, furnished all documents and information available with PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House, and wherever the information sought was not disclosable, the relevant exemption provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were duly cited. Upon scrutiny, the matter was not found to fall under the "life or liberty" clause under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, and therefore the reply was furnished in the normal course after obtaining inputs from the concerned office.Page 9 of 26
In view of the above, it is prayed that the request for exemplary action under Section 18(1)(b) and (c), imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) and 20(2) RTI Act against Shri Daleep Kumar Sabni, then CPIO, may not be considered.
(ii) Written Submission dated 13.02.2026: It is stated that a point-wise reply to the RTI application dated 14.07.2025 informing that the last salary bill of LASTEC, Delhi was received in March 2021 and number of officials subsequently reflected in the salary bills of other laboratories is not available in the requisite format with this office, as after closure of LASTEC, officers/staff/scientists were transferred to various laboratories located at different stations.
4. Second Complaint- CIC/CGDAC/C/2025/625505 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"The appellant while citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through para 20 as follows:
Having regards to the submission at para 5 therein -"5. As LASTEC was closed and the officer was on compulsory retirement as on 20.03.2024, his claim for Final settlement of GPF is required to be prepared and forwarded to this office, with connected documents by DRDO for further necessary process for payment of balance amount to be paid to the officer, which is not received in this office till date. In the absence of the same this office is not in position to forward the final settlement claim of GPF to PCDA (R&D) Delhi. 6. As explained above, is the factual position of the case", the CPIO is requested to please secure the following from Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) / DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, Delhi / PCDA (R&D) R K Puram (being recipient of letter dated 19.02.2025) and provide the same to the undersigned:
(1) Date of closure of the Unit Accounting Code (330000036) of the unit / establishment LASTEC, Metcalfe House, Delhi, as available in the internal records of DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House / PCDA (R&D) RK Page 10 of 26 Puram, Delhi, relying upon which it was stated by Sr. Account Officer (Pay) at para 5 that LASTEC was closed.
(2) Reference number & date of the order issued by controller of defence accounts at Delhi / CGDA / any other competent authority to close the Unit Accounting Code (330000036) of LASTEC. (3) Certified copy of the document stated at (2) above, relying upon which it was stated by Sr. Account Officer (Pay) at para 5 that LASTEC was closed.
(4) Certified copy of Govt. of India authorized notification Gazette Notification (official publication of Govt. of India that carries statutory orders and notifications) of closure of LASTEC, as available in the internal records of DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, relying upon which it was stated by Sr. Account Officer (Pay) at para 5 that LASTEC was closed.
(5) Certified copy of certificate of transfer of charge in GFR 16 proviso to Rule 286(1) of GFR 2017 / charge relinquishment executed between the controlling officer /reporting officer at LASTEC Delhi and Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, prior to closure of LASTEC (as being claimed by Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) in his letter dated 19.02.2025 (Exhibit 3), which was watched by Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) before claiming "LASTEC was closed" in terms of his letter dated 19.02.2025."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 29.05.2025 stating as under:
"Para 1 to 19: No reply sought for; hence, no reply is anticipated /furnished.
Para 20(1 to 4): Date of closure of the Defence Unit / establishment is designation information of National interest and sharing of confidential information, particularly personal information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 20(5): "Certificate of transfer of charge..." is an administrative action and the information may be sought for direct from the unit concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 21 to 23: No reply sought for; hence, no reply is anticipated /furnished."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 11 of 26Written submissions filed by the complainant:
(i) Written submission dated 09.02.2026: It states that the complainant filed the RTI application on 26.05.2025 and received a reply on 20.06.2025. However, the instant complaint was filed on 03.06.2025. It is further stated that there was refusal and failure on the part of the respondent to provide the information within 48 hours, as mandated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
The complainant has also stated that the non-payment of salary, pay, and allowances, and the actions of the authorities contrary to the settled procedures and without authorization in law, have led to deprivation of salary and consequent denial of livelihood. It is submitted that the matter relates to a violation of human rights, particularly the denial of livelihood.
Written submissions filed by the respondent:
(i) Written submissions dated 04.02.2026: It is submitted that with respect to the RTI Application dated 26.05.2025, the CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi, vide letter dated 20.06.2025, furnished all documents and information available with PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House. Wherever the information sought was exempt from disclosure, the relevant provision i.e., Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was duly cited, and wherever the information was not available with the said offices, the applicant was advised to approach the concerned Unit/Office in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Upon scrutiny, the case was not found to fall under the "life or liberty" clause under Section 7(1) of the Act, and therefore the reply was furnished in the normal course after obtaining inputs from DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House.
(ii) Written submission dated 13.02.2026: It is stated that the date of closure of Unit Accounting Code has already been provided to the applicant (complainant) in response to RTI application dated 01.06.2024, vide letter dated 26.06.2024 and their copies enclosed again. The date of closure of LASTEC is also intimated as 23.03.2022, as per Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Research & Development letter dated 23.03.2022. The Unit Accounting Code of LASTEC was closed on the authority of the aforesaid DRDO letter dated 23.03.2022. Certified copy of the said DRDO letter dated 23.03.2022 has also been attached along with Page 12 of 26 other documents. It is also stated that Gazette Notification regarding closure of LASTEC is not available with the respondent office. It is stated that the certified copy of certificate of transfer of charge is not available with the respondent office as the same is not required for payment purposes.
5. Second Complaint- CIC/CGDAC/C/2025/625516 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"The appellant while citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through para 20 as follows:
Having regards to the submission / claim at para 3 therein - "As the officer was posted out from LASTEC w.e.f. 09.02.2021 and accordingly his PAY & Allowances was discontinued in TULIP system since Mar 2021" and para 6 "As explained above, is the factual position of the case", the CPIO is requested to please secure the following from Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) / DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, Delhi / PCDA (R&D) RK Puram (being recipient of letter dated 19.02.2025) and provide the same to the undersigned:
(1) Certified copy of DO Part II or Part II order of strength increase of IRDE Dehradun on account of joining of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra at IRDE Dehradun, which was brought on record by controller of defence accounts at Dehradun, or watched and vouched by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi before pay-drop /discontinuation of pay & allowances on TULIP platform in March 2021.
(2) Date of creation of "joining report" of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra at IRDE Dehradun, which was made known by the controller of defence accounts at Dehradun to the controller of defence accounts at Delhi on TULIP platform, or fetched by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House / watched and vouched by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi before pay-drop / Page 13 of 26 discontinuation of pay & allowances on TULIP platform in March 2021.
(3) Certified copy of the "joining report" of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra stated in (2) above, as available in the internal records of DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, relying on which discontinuation of pay & allowances was done on TULIP platform in March 2021 /pay drop in TULIP was done by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House.
(4) Please provide name and designation of the official or officials of controller of defence accounts at Delhi, who exercised the authority for the pay-drop in TULIP platform at Delhi in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra.
(5) As the salary - pay & allowances were discontinued since March 2021, as stated so in Letter No. DCDA/R&D/MH/Pay/RTI dated 19.02.2025 (Exhibit 3), please provide certified copy of the relevant page of the salary bill of Feb 2021 (previous month) in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra indicating the date of "handing over charge" and "taken over charge" which was watched and vouched by DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House at that point of time and now watched and vouched by the Sr. Accounts Officer (Pay) DCDA (R&D) relying on which letter dated 19.02.2025 was created and sent to PCDA (R&D) R K Puram, Delhi by him."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 30.05.2025 stating as under:
"Para 1 to 19: No reply sought for; hence, no reply is anticipated /furnished.
Para 20(1): "Certified copy of DO Part II or Part II order of strength increase of IRDE Dehradun" is an administrative action and the information may be sought for direct from the unit /office concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 20(2 to 3): "Date of creation of joining report of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra at IRDE Dehradun" is an Page 14 of 26 administrative action and the information may be sought for direct from the unit /office concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 20(4): "Name and designation..." may be sought for direct from the unit office concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 20(5): "Salary bill of Feb 2021. .." contains third party information in terms of Section 11 of RTI Act, 2005; hence, the same may be sought for direct from the unit concern in terms of Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submissions filed by the respondent:
(i) Written submissions dated 04.02.2026: It is stated that in response to RTI Application dated 26.05.2025, the CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi, vide letter dated 20.06.2025, furnished all information and documents available with PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House.
(ii) Written submissions dated 13.02.2026: It is stated that the copy of Transfer Part II Office Order had already been provided to the Complainant earlier vide letter dated 26.06.2024 in response to RTI Application No. CGDFA/R/E/24/01933; Copy of LPC had also already been provided earlier vide letter dated 26.06.2024, however, a certified copy of these documents are again enclosed with the written submissions. Further, the name of Auditor and Senior Accounts Officer (SAO) have also been disclosed.
6. Second Complaint- CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/641776 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2024 seeking the following information:Page 15 of 26
"The appellant while citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through 19 as follows: Having regards to the under reference letter No. AT/II/2296/e-23401 dated 16.01.2024 (without any enclosures) received by Speed Post No. ED603595465IN on 01.07.2024 piggy-backing with letter No. AT/II/2296/e-23401 dated 24.06.2024 & claiming therein "response has already been furnished vide this Hqrs letter dated 16.01.2024. A copy of the same is again being enclosed for perusal" by the signatory Shri Roshan Tigga, SAO (AT), CGDA Hqrs, the CPIO is being requested to please secure and provide what is sought from [1] to [17] below having regards to / in consideration of Letter No. AT/II/2296/e-23401 dated 16.01.2024.
(1) Certified copy of the relevant page of outward diary dispatch register maintained at CGDA Hqrs (or at any other location) indicating the dispatch of the said letter dated 16.01.2024 in January 2024 (or before 24.06.2024) to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra.
(2) Dispatch number and date as recorded in the register stated at (1).
(3) Outward Dak ID (with date) as recorded / allocated by the Record Section (or any other authorized section) in TULIP in January 2024 (or before 24.06.2024) as per the Dak category available in Project Tulip or otherwise an outward dak dispatch id (with date before 24.06.2024) w.r.t. said letter dated 16.01.2024.
(4) Mode by which letter dated 16.01.2024 was served / communicated to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra i.e. by hand / Speed Post / Registered Post / E-mail, in January 2024 (or before 24.06.2024)).
(5) Proof of service (dated before 24.06.2024) of the letter dated 16.01.2024, by hand/ Speed Post / Registered Post / E-mail.
(6) Tracking details as generated from India Post website with regards to Speed Post / Registered Post done in January 2024 (or before 24.06.2024) of the letter dated 16.01.2024. (7) Proof of article - letter dated 16.01.2024 having being returned (before 24.06.2024) by the postal authorities with the following remarks (a) unclaimed (b) not met (c) not available (d) refused (e) premises locked (f) party not at station, arrival not known.Page 16 of 26
(8) Speed Post / Registered Post booking receipt (dated before 4.06.2024) of letter dated 16.01.2024, as available in the Record Section (or any other authorized section) of CGDA Hqrs.
(9) "Self contained "para wise" reasoned and seasoned Speaking Order" on the representation dated 06.07.2023 by reduction of each para 1 to 73 in writing and assigning cogent verifiable reasons and rule position to each para and sub para, was sought by the complainant through representation cum complaint dated 06.07.2023 duly receipted by CGDA on 12.07.2023. Issuance of a Speaking Order is statutory mandatory requirement known to law, Govt. of India directives and procedures in vogue. Please provide certified copy of the para wise Speaking Order in a manner stated above, under signatures of CGDA, which was served / communicated to the complainant on or before 24.06.2024. If it was not provided, please say "not provided"
and such an information would suffice in respect of information sought in under reference para (9). (10) In case the para wise Speaking Order as stated in (9) above was not provided to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, please provide the date on which it will be provided.
(11) Certified copy of the "compliance audit / performance audit/ efficiency audit/complaint audit" report having regards to the representation cum concordant complaint dated 06.07.2023 served or communicated to the complainant on or before 16.01.2024. If not provided, please say "no such report is available as on date".
(12) In case the report sought in (11) above was not provided, please provide the date on which it will be provided or certified copy of the letter written by CGDA Hqrs (before 16.01.2024) directing concerned official(s) in CGDA / PCDA (R&D) Delhi to conduct "compliance audit / performance audit / efficiency audit / complaint audiť and provide report to the complainant under express approval of CGDA. (13) Dates on which the "compliance audit / performance audit / efficiency audit /complaint audit" as above was done by CGDA Hqrs / PCDA (R&D) Delhi post receipt of representation cum complaint dated 06.07.2023. (14) Name and designation of the official(s) under whose authority and signatures, the report stated in 11 above, with title indicating compliance audit / performance audit Page 17 of 26 /efficiency audit/ complaint audit report, was created and submitted to CGDA, on or before 16.01.2024.
(15) Certified copy of the letter written by CGDA to CAG (and its proof of service by hand / speed post / registered post / e- mail) having regards to conducting special audit /performance audit / compliance audit by CAG as sought in the representation cum complaint dated 06.07.2023 by the complainant. If no such letter exists, please state "no such letter exists" and such an answer would suffice. (16) Date on which personal hearing session (which was previously sought) of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra was scheduled / held with CGDA before creation of letter dated 16.01.2024. (17) Certified copy of the letter (with its proof of service dated before 24.06.2024) which was served / communicated to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra seeking additional submissions/rejoinder by him on the letter dated 16.01.2024."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 30.07.2024 stating as under:
"Para 1- 18 No information has been sought.
Para 20-21 No information has been sought.
(19.1) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.2) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.3) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.4) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.5) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.6) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.8) A copy of the Ordinary Dak Outward Register is enclosed. (19.7) As per record, letter dated 16.01.2024 dispatched by ordinary post has not been found returned to the R&D Section.
(19.9 to 19.17) A copy of this HQrs office letter no. AT/II/2296/E 23401 dated 16.01.2024 is enclosed.The Public Information Officer is not required to furnish information which -require drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies hypothetical questions."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 18 of 26Written submissions filed by the Complainant:
(i) Written submission dated 09.02.2026: It states that the complainant filed the RTI application on 04.07.2024 and received the reply after a delay of 26 days, i.e., on 30.07.2024. It is submitted that the respondents failed to provide the information within the statutory time frame of 48 hours as prescribed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that the reply furnished is vague, cryptic, incomplete, and misleading. The complainant has also stated that if the respondents fail to provide the reply within the period mentioned under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the same amounts to a deemed refusal of the request.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Ms. Ira Chopra through her representative Shri Anil Kumar Chopra Respondent: Shri Parminder Singh, IDAS, ACDA-CPIO of the PCDA(R&D) New Delhi, Ms. Anuradha, IDAS, DCDA- CPIO of the DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House, New Delhi, Dr. Deepti Bhardwaj, Chief Administrative Officer, SSPL of DRDO Lab.
7. Proof of having served a copy of complaints on Respondents, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
8. The Complainant, through her representative (Shri Anil Kumar Chopra), inter alia submitted that the information sought by her pertains to official administrative records relating to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, Scientist 'F' regarding his transfer, audit of Last Pay Certificate (LPC), discontinuation of pay and allowances on the TULIP platform, and handing over/taking over of charge. He contended that the information requested has not been supplied to her and none of the reply has been received within 48 hours, since the applicant had specifically referred to the provisions of section 7(1) of the RTI Act in her RTI applications on the ground of right to life and liberty and right to livelihood. He further added that he is not interested in receiving any information now, hence, has filed the complaints, seeking imposition of penalty under section 20(1) and disciplinary proceedings under section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the respondent CPIOs.Page 19 of 26
9. The respondents while defending their case submitted that all RTI applications were examined and replied to within the statutory period under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Wherever information was available with PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House, the same was furnished. In cases where the information was not held, the Complainant was appropriately informed and advised to approach the concerned Unit/Office under Section 6(3) of the Act, as she had sought information available in the records of the respondents CPIOs only. It was clarified that the matters raised did not fall within the "life or liberty"
clause under Section 7(1), and therefore were processed in the normal course. The CPIO stated that certain records such as handing over/taking over details and Gazette Notification were not available with their office, and under the RTI Act, there is no obligation to create or reconstruct non- existent information. The Respondent denied any mala fide intent or delay and submitted that replies were furnished strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. It was also submitted that multiple RTI applications on similar issues have been repeatedly filed by the Complainant, causing diversion of administrative resources. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed that no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act be initiated against the CPIO, as there is no malafide intent to hide any information which can be shared as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions of both parties notes that the information sought in the present cases pertains to administrative records, transfer orders, LPC audit details, month and year of receipt of the last salary bill of LASTEC, Delhi after its closure, and the number of officials whose names subsequently appeared in the salary bills of SSPL and INMAS and related matters related to certified copies of documents and details relating to discontinuation of pay and allowances of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra in March 2021 on the TULIP platform, including DO Part II order, joining report, name and designation of officials responsible for pay-drop, and relevant portion of the salary bill of February 2021 indicating handing over/taking over of charge.
Taking note of the oral submissions made by the complainant, the Commission observes that his complaint is primarily on the ground that information has not been provided within 48 hours under section 7(1) of the RTI Act, as has been requested in her RTI applications. She has Page 20 of 26 primarily sought relief under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act against the respondents.
In all the above cases, the Commission takes the note that the Complainant, while filing RTI applications has requested to provide the same in 48 hours under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, without giving adequate justification for the same. Further, the respondents in their written submissions dated 04.02.2026 has categorically stated that no case of life or liberty is found, therefore reply was submitted by the respondent CPIO accordingly after obtaining the details from the DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House.
In so far as the life or liberty aspect raised by the Complainant is concerned, the Commission notes that in decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000814/18825 dated 09.05.2012, the Commission had observed as under:-
"Proviso of Section 7(1) states that where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. This provision has to be applied only in exceptional cases and the norm is that information should be provided within thirty days from the receiving date. Whether the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person has to be carefully scrutinized and only in a very limited number of cases this ground can be relied upon. The government machinery is not designed in a way that responses to all RTI Applications can be given within forty-eight hours. A broad interpretation of 'life or liberty' would result in a substantial diversion of manpower and resources towards replying to RTI Applications which would be unjustified. Parliament has made a very special exception for cases involving 'life or liberty' so that it would be used only when an imminent threat to life or liberty is involved.
The life or liberty provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she or he is going to be incarcerated or has already been incarcerated and the disclosure of the information may change that situation. If the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger then it may be considered under the proviso of Page 21 of 26 Section 7(1). The imminent danger has to be demonstrably proven. The Commission is well aware of the fact that when a citizen exercises his or her fundamental right to information, the information disclosed may assist him or her to lead a better life. But in all such cases, the proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless imminent danger to life or liberty can be proven."
It is observed from the perusal of facts on record that Appellant filed the instant RTI Applications under Life & Liberty clause of RTI Act citing non- payment of salary - pay allowances/ pension, pensionary benefits etc. On this it was clarified by the respondents during the hearing that the complainant was transferred to IRDE on 09.02.2021, however, he did not join the place of his posting. Thereafter, disciplinary action was taken against him in which he never participated. After completing the disciplinary proceedings, with the approval of the competent authority, an order to compulsory retire the complainant from the service was passed.
From the above clarifications given by the respondents, prima facie, the matter appears to be of a service matter grievances. Accordingly, the ratio of the court cases cited by the complainant in the RTI applications are not applicable looking at the facts of the matter on record in the instant cases.
In this regard, the Commission draw a reference to an order dated 10.04.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of SS Mahendra Kumar vs. CIC & Anr. (LPA No. 91 of 2018) wherein the following was held:
"This Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal; the appellant's grievance with respect to the observations made by the learned Single Judge who commented that in the peculiar circumstance the claim for pension did not fall within the category of extremely urgent applications that were to be decided by the RTI Authority (within 48 hours), is in no manner erroneous.
The Court is of the opinion that though the Central Information Commission has wide discretion as to the manner of deciding what category of cases should be expedited, its wide categorization for all pension cases to need extreme expedition, may not be justified."
Applying the ratio of the above cited CIC decision dated 09.05.2012 and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Order dated 10.04.2018 in the instant complaint cases, the Commission observes that the expression "life or liberty" under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act is to be construed strictly and Page 22 of 26 applies only in exceptional circumstances where there is an imminent threat to life or personal liberty. In the instant matter no material has been placed on record to establish any immediate or direct threat to the life or liberty of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Commission tend to agree with the respondent's view that the present matter does not qualify as a case of "life and liberty" under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
The Commission further observes that during the course of proceedings and subsequently by submitting written submissions dated 13.02.2026, the Respondents have furnished the relevant information including the date of closure of LASTEC, and clarification regarding closure of the Unit Accounting Code, copies of salary bills etc. With respect to the Gazette Notification and certificate of transfer of charge, the Respondent has categorically stated non-availability of the records with the office concerned. The Commission observes that a CPIO is required to provide information as available on record and cannot be directed to create or procure information not held by the public authority.
In proceedings under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the scope of inquiry is limited to examining whether there has been any refusal to receive an application, delay in furnishing information, malafide denial, knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, destruction of information, or obstruction in furnishing information. Upon perusal of the records in the present complaints, the Commission does not find any material to conclude that the Respondent CPIO has acted with mala fide intention, deliberately withheld information, or furnished incorrect or misleading information.
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon close scrutiny of records and oral submissions made by the respondents, it is noted by the Commission that the complainant has filed multiple RTI applications with the similar queries.
In the instant cases, the Commission would like to refer to the position of Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"... The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and Page 23 of 26 accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
While, the respondent CPIOs have also given replies to multiple RTI applications of the complainant, the Commission observes that the part- replies of the respondent CPIOs in the Complaint no. 625748, 625505 and 625516 advising the complainant to seek the information from other Public Authority, instead of transferring the same under section 6(3) of RTI Act are not proper. However, looking at the multiple RTI applications on similar queries filed by the complainant in which information has been sought as available in the records of the respondent CPIO only and the above cited Supreme Court judgement, no mala fide denial of information or otherwise is found on the part of CPIO in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009, wherein it was held as under:
Page 24 of 26"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
During the course of hearing, it was observed that the Complainant repeatedly interrupted the proceedings despite being advised to maintain order and allow the Respondents to complete submissions. Such continuous interruptions hampered the smooth conduct of the hearing and disrupted the proceedings before the Commission. The Complainant was cautioned to maintain decorum and adhere to the procedural discipline expected in proceedings under the RTI Act, 2005. Such conduct is inappropriate and inconsistent with the dignity of proceedings before the Commission. In this regard, the Commission would like to mention the decision of another bench of the Commission in the matter of Nitin Pratap Singh vs. CPIO, File no. CIC/MODEF/A/2024/103000, in which inter alia it was observed as under:
"the Commission admonishes the conduct of the appellant during the hearing, as he was continuously creating disturbance by interfering in the proceedings of the Commission and had to be repeatedly asked to maintain decorum for the smooth conduct of the hearing"
In view of the above, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the respondent CPIO and thus, no penal action under section 20 of the RTI Act is warranted in the matter.
With the above observations, instant Complaints are disposed of.
SD/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL (संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 17.02.2026 Page 25 of 26 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S K Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 ddresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO Office of DCDA (R&D), Metcalfe House Delhi - 110054 (2) Ms. Ira Chopra Page 26 of 26 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)