Appeal against CIC penalty order. Court observed petition satisfied cause and penalty recovery was time-barred. Petition disposed of without further directions regarding recovery.
Petition disposed of; no directions issued regarding recovery of penalty as it had already been paid and recovered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~J
versus KARTAR SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurabh Seth Advocate (Amicus Curiae) along with Ms. Sumeera Seth, Ms. Neelampreet Kaur and Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
Shri S.C. Bajpai were considered for absorption in Group 'A' III. The respondent also sought details regarding the date and year of absorption in Class-I for each of the aforementioned individuals, and expressed willingness to pay the necessary fee for the documents as per applicable rules under the RTI Act.
" Information that is available at this distant date are the notifications dated 05.09.1991 and 22.07.1992, copies thereof are provided herewith. The relevant files are not available. Hence, no further information can be supplied by this office. However, since UPSC is the custodian of DPC minutes, the applicant, if so desire, may approach UPSC for copies of DPC minutes."
“ Sh. Prabir Roy submitted that the appellant had asked for copies of
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 2 of 7
DPC minutes in which he, alongwith Sh.K.K Sharma and S.C Bajpai were considered for absorption in Group “A”. The DPC minutes are a part of the file in which the same was examined and submitted to the competent authority for obtaining the approval of the competent authority before issuing promotion orders. In the instant case, the relevant file (No. E(GP) 86/1/58) not being available, information sought for was regretted to the complainant. He also submitted that the RTI applications calling for copies of DPC minutes used to be referred to the UPSC U/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act since they are the custodian of DPC minutes. The UPSC returned such RTI applications on the plea that once the UPSC sends the relevant DPC minutes to the Ministries concerned, the concerned ministries/depts become the sole custodian of the DPC minutes. As promotions are decided by them on the basis of DPC Minutes, it is for the Ministries concerned to provide copies of DPC minutes to the concerned RTI applicants. It was on this premise that the said RTI application was not referred to the UPSC U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act and the appellant was rather advised to approach the UPSC, in case he so desired for obtaining copies of the relevant DPC minutes. In fact the appellant indicated in para 5 of his complaint memo dated 16.02.2016 submitted to the CIC that he did approach the UPSC on 03.02.2016 but he was told the same thing that it was for the Ministry concerned to provide the desired information to him. The CPIO concerned submitted that such reply was provided to the appellant in good faith to facilitate the applicant. ”
“ To
Shri Amitava Bhattacharyya, Hon ’ ble Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
Sir,
Sub: Reply to show-cause notice. Ref: Your decision dated 28.12.2017 (File No. CIC/AB/2016/000073).
I have been asked to explain the following:-
(i) Why improper reply was provided to the appellant; and (ii) Why the said RTI application was not transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, UPSC in case the holder of information was UPSC.
2. My humble submissions in this regard are as under:-
The appellant had called for copies of DPC minutes in which he, alongwith S/Shri K.K. Sharma and S.C. Bajpai were considered for absorption in Group ‘ A
’ . The DPC minutes are a part of the file on which it is examined for obtaining the approval of the competent authority before issuing promotion orders. In the instant case, the relevant file (No. E/(GP)/86/1/58) not being available, information sought for was regretted to the appellant. It will be further relevant to mention that RTI applications calling for copies of DPC minutes used to be referred to the UPSC u/s 6(3) of the RTI since they are the custodian of DPC minutes. However, they returned the RTI applications on the plea that once UPSC sends DPC minutes to the Ministries concerned, they become the sole custodian of DPC minutes as promotions are made by them on the basis of DPC minutes and as such, it is for the Ministries concerned to provide copies of DPC minutes to the RTI applicants. It was on this premise that the said RTI application was not referred to the UPSC u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act and the appellant was rather advised to approach the UPSC, if so desired, for copies of DPC minutes. In fact, the appellant, as indicated in Para 5 of his 2nd appeal to CIC dated 16th February, 2016 (copy enclosed), did approach the UPSC on 03.02.2016 when he was told the same thing that it was for the Ministry concerned to provide the desired information to him.
3. In view of what has been explained above, I believe that I had given reply to the appellant based on facts and to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Yours faithfully -sd(Prabir Roy) Dy. Director, Estt. (GP) Railway Board"
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
“ Decision :
The Commission noted that the then PIO, Sh. Prabir Roy did not provide the sought for information to the appellant in the present case. Not only that he provided a wrong reply to the appellant concerned to approach the UPSC for obtaining a copy of the DPC minutes pertaining to his organization forgetting/ignoring in the process that the UPSC had returned the concerned file to the railway board earlier in view of the consistent stand taken by the UPSC to send all such case paper(s) to the concerned organizations once the process of consultation with the UPSC is completed.
The Act on the part of Sh.Roy amounts to denial of sought for information under the relevant provision of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission finds it to be a fit case to impose a token penalty of Rs.8000/- recoverable in four equal monthly installments upon him.
The Commission hereby imposes penalty of Rs.8000/- on the Deputy Director (Establishment), Sh. Prabir Roy for denial of the Requisite information under the provision of the RTI Act. Accordingly, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- in 4 equal monthly installments. The Director (establishment) Railway Board, is directed to recover the amount of Rs.8000/- from the salary payable to Sh.Prabir Roy and remit the same by way of demand draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT" New Delhi in 4 equal monthly installments. The first installment should reach the Commission by 10.06.2018 and the last installment should reach by 10.09.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Sh. S.P Beck, Joint Secy. (Admn.), Room No. 506, Central Information Commission,CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi110067. ”
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
communicated to the respondent. It is further submitted that, in good faith, the respondent was advised to approach the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), as the said information might be available with that authority.
“ Observation :
The Commission observed that the concerned CPIO had advised the applicant in this case to approach UPSC, as the file was not available with him at that point of time. However, he did not transfer the said RTI application U/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the UPSC because of the stand taken by the UPSC that they are not the record holder in such cases as was communicated earlier to all ministries /depts./organizations under Govt. of India by the UPSC. ”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
no directions be issued with regard to the recovery thereof from the respondent.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 09, 2025/ss
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13531/2018 Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:0 8.10.2025 15:37:28
3 issues framed by the court
Whether non-availability of information justifies framing a reply directing the applicant to approach another authority without transferring the application.
Whether the penalty imposed for the alleged denial of information is maintainable where the amount has already been recovered.
Whether the impugned order declaring malafides was justified given the factual findings regarding the non-availability of the file.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
KARTAR SINGH
SACHIN DATTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
