Your full service record under RTI — service book, leave, transfer and disciplinary files

“Service record” is wider than the APAR. For a government servant it typically includes:

• the service book — the running history of your appointment, confirmation, increments, pay fixation, and verification of service;
• the leave account — earned leave, half-pay leave, and the leave orders on your file;
• transfer and posting orders and, where they exist as records, the file notings behind them;
• your disciplinary and vigilance record — charge memos, your replies, inquiry reports, and final orders in proceedings against you;
• ancillary papers — pay-fixation statements, GPF/NPS account entries, and nomination forms.

Every one of these is “information” held by a public authority under Section 2(f), and copies of records you can seek under Section 2(j)(ii). The only real question is whether an exemption applies — and against the person the record is about, Section 8(1)(j) does not.

Section 8(1)(j) exempts “personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual”. Read the words: the clause exists to protect the privacy of the individual the information is about.

• When a stranger asks for your service record, Girish Ramchandra Deshpande says the PIO may refuse unless a larger public interest is shown, and R.K. Jain says even then the Section 11 third-party procedure — notice to you, your objections heard — must be followed. You are the protected party.
• When you ask for your own record, there is no third party whose privacy could be invaded. A refusal that stamps “8(1)(j) — personal information” on the data subject's own application inverts the provision. The Supreme Court's own service-jurisprudence points the same way: Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh hold that every entry in your record must be shown to you as a requirement of Article 14 fairness — a legal regime that compels communication to you cannot coexist with an RTI exemption hiding the same record from you.

Two honest caveats. First, if your file mixes in genuinely third-party material — say a complainant's identity in a vigilance matter — the PIO can invoke the relevant exemption for that material and sever it under Section 10, giving you the rest. Second, during a pending inquiry a PIO may cite Section 8(1)(h) (impeding investigation); the refusal must actually explain how disclosure would impede the process, and it lapses once the proceeding ends. Where a specific rule or precedent for your service (state rules differ) is needed, check your department's service rules — many independently allow an employee to inspect their own service book.

Address the PIO of the office that holds your service book (usually your head of office or cadre controller), with the ₹10 fee (see state-wise RTI fees). Ask for records, not explanations:

Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, I request the following
information relating to me (I am the subject of these records):

1. Certified copy of my complete service book, including the
   leave account, as it stands on date, under Section 2(j)(ii).
2. Certified copies of all orders of my transfer/posting from
   [date] to date, with the dates each was issued.
3. Certified copy of my pay-fixation statements from [date].
4. Certified copies of any charge memo, inquiry report and
   final order in any disciplinary proceeding against me,
   whether concluded or pending.
5. If any part of the above is withheld, the exact provision
   relied on, and severed copies of the remainder under
   Section 10.

A reply is due within 30 days under Section 7(1). Since these
are my own records, Section 8(1)(j) does not apply against me.
Kindly also inform me of my right to first appeal under
Section 19(1).

You can generate a clean version with the RTI Drafter.

1. Read the refusal against the law. A bare “8(1)(j) — personal information” against your own record is a weak order — run it through the PIO Reply Checker.
2. File a first appeal within 30 days under Section 19(1) with the First Appeal Builder. Point out that you are the data subject; cite Girish Ramchandra Deshpande and R.K. Jain for their true scope — third-party cases that protect you — and Dev Dutt/Sukhdev Singh for your right to see your own record.
3. Track the clock with the Timeline Tracker — 30 days of silence is a deemed refusal.
4. Second appeal to the Information Commission under Section 19(3) if the first appellate authority also refuses.

For the full escalation playbook, see The RTI Playbook and the PIO RTI Reply Guide.

Not sustainably. The clause protects the privacy of the person the information is about. When you seek your own service book or leave account, there is no third-party privacy to invade, and the Dev Dutt line of authority independently requires your record to be shown to you. Such refusals are routinely reversed in first appeal.

Yes, for proceedings against you — the charge memo, your replies, the inquiry report and final orders are your own record. During a pending inquiry the PIO may invoke Section 8(1)(h), but must explain how disclosure would actually impede the process; once the proceeding concludes, that ground falls away. Material identifying a third party (such as a complainant) can be severed under Section 10 — the rest must still be given.

Generally no. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, (2013) 1 SCC 212 holds another public servant's service record is exempt personal information unless a larger public interest is shown, and R.K. Jain (2013) requires the Section 11 notice procedure even then. Frame comparative grievances around records about you (your seniority position, your pay fixation) or non-personal records (seniority lists, sanction registers).

The APAR/ACR-specific regime — communication of every entry, the DoPT OM of 14 May 2009, representation timelines — has its own page: Your own APAR and service book under RTI. This page covers the rest of the service record: service book, leave, transfers, pay and disciplinary papers.

• Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 — indiankanoon.org/doc/801705
• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566 — indiankanoon.org/doc/9665019
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 — indiankanoon.org/doc/160205361
• R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 16 April 2013 — indiankanoon.org/doc/70139862
• DoPT OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009 — doptcirculars.nic.in PDF
• The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 2(f), 2(j), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j), 10, 11, 19

Closest editorial neighbours on the same point of law — useful starting points if you are researching own-record access.

• Your own APAR and service book under RTI — verified law (SC line, 2008–2013)
• Service book disclosure to public servant — Kerala HC (HC-KER 2021)
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (SC 2012)
• Pension records — Kerala HC (HC-KER 2018)

• All Supreme Court of India rulings in the corpus
• All RTI cases turning on §8
• Full case-law search
• Case-Law Database — overview
• PIO RTI Reply Guide
• The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated
• State-wise RTI fees

Editorial summary · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.