Central Information Commission
Jagdev Singh vs Department Of Posts on 14 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/131780
Jagdev Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Patiala, Punjab
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 19.06.2024 FA : 30.07.2024 SA : 27.09.2024
CPIO : 03.07.2024 FAO : 23.08.2024 Hearing : 09.10.2025
Date of Decision: 13.10.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Copy of statement Sh. Gurdev Singh, Grp. D working in Amloh Post Office given in CLI-Amloh Fraud Case.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The applicant was identified as Primary Offender in connection with Misappropriation of Government Money at Amloh SO and FIR No. 69 was registered against him at Amloh Police Station on 19.07.2012. Further, the process of recovery of Misappropriated Money in r/o Amloh SO is in pipeline.Page 1 of 3
Moreover, Court Cases are lying pending in Hon'ble High Court Chandigarh and CAT Bench Chandigarh in this Fraud case for affecting recovery from the offenders. Therefore, the information cannot be supplied under the provisions of Rule 8(1)(h) of RTI Act-2005 and CIC order in appeal no. 442/ICPB/2007 (F No. PBA/06/463) dated 07.05.2007.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete. The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.09.2024.
5. The appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Vijay Kumar - Inspector of Posts was also present through video conference during the hearing.
6. During the course of hearing the appellant inter alia expressed dissatisfaction with the response received from the Respondent and reiterated contentions from his second appeal stating that he sought the information to defend himself before CAT-Chandigarh.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that response based on available records in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act had been duly provided to the Appellant. The Respondent referred to the written submission dated 26.09.2025 reiterating the above facts. He additionally stated some pertinent information about the RTI query stating that the information sought related to a fraud committed at Amloh Sub Post Office, of which the Appellant was identified as a primary offender. The process of recovery of misappropriate money in respect of Amloh SO is in pipeline; the Court cases arising out of the fraud case affecting recovery of money from the offenders including the appellant are pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court, Chandigarh and CAT Bench at Chandigarh. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant could not be disclosed at this stage under the RTI Act. The appellant being prime offender and party to Page 2 of 3 the pending cases is aware of the same and has been provided documents in the Court proceedings, as permissible under the law.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that response sent by the PIO is appropriate as duly explained in the written submission by the respondent. The written submission dated 26.09.2025 filed by the Respondent is duly taken on record and it is directed that a copy of the entire set of written submission with relevant annexures shall be sent by the Respondent to the appellant within ten days of receipt of this order, under intimation to this Commission. In view of the above discussion, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention is warranted in the instant matter. Accordingly, the appeal at hand is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 13.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer O/O. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Supdt., & CPIO, Department Of Posts, Patiala Division, Patiala, Punjab-147001
2. Jagdev Singh Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)