के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/MODEF/A/2024/616973 Dr Anuj Kumar Jhankal .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, RTI Cell, Indian Military Academy, Dehradun - 248007 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 09.09.2025 Date of Decision : 24.09.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 24.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 27.02.2024 First appeal filed on : 04.03.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 04.04.2024 Compliance of FA order : NA

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.04.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 24.01.2024 seeking the following information:

“Please provide me with a certified copy of the complete noting sheet pertaining to my applications for the personal interview with the Commandant, IMA, dated 06 Feb 2023, 07 Mar 2023, and 21 Aug 2023, including all the comments in the chain of command related to the same.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.02.2024 stating as under:

“1. The information sought by you is an internal correspondence pertaining to discussion/opinion on the subject from various officials of the Academy containing the comments and details of officers in chain, thus comes under Third Party. Further no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information and thus denied under section 8 (1) (j)

of RTI Act 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 04.04.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Col. VKS Rawat; Lt. Col. Rakesh Kumar; and Dr. Naveen Kumar, Principal ACC Wing, appeared through video conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 11.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.

6. A written submission was filed by the Appellant on 03.09.2025, contents of the same are reproduced as under:

1. “I respectfully refer to my Second Appeal vide Diary No. 616973, filed on

11 April 2024 before this Hon'ble Commission.

2. I, Dr. Anuj Kumar Jhankal, presently serving at the Indian Military Academy (IMA), Dehradun, Ministry of Defence, had sought a certified copy of the complete noting sheet, including all comments recorded in the chain of command, pertaining to my applications for a personal interview with the Commandant, IMA, Dehradun, dated 06.02.2023, 07.03.2023, and

21.08.2023.

3. The Public Information Officer (PIO), vide order dated 27.02.2024, denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, terming it "third-party information." My First Appeal was also rejected on 04.04.2024 by the First Appellate Authority (FAA), upholding the same reasoning.

Consequently, I filed this Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Commission.

4. I respectfully submit that I made repeated requests for a personal interview with the Commandant, but no reasons for rejection were communicated. The noting sheet is the only official record that reflects the basis of the decision. As the directly affected person, I have a right to know the grounds on which my applications were declined.

5. Sir, I submit the following points for consideration of this Hon'ble Commission:

(a) Section 8(1)(j) applies only to "personal information" of a third party, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. In the present case, the information pertains to my own applications and their processing; hence, I am not a third party to my own records.

(b) The officers' comments are official notings recorded in discharge of their official duties. Such notings constitute part of the decision- making pro