As per 4(1)(d) of RTIAct -- Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
As such few applications were submitted . One of us wanted to know the reason of certain decisions in connection with departmental enquiry.
He was provided with comments like this by the concerned PIO--
a) The enquiry officer did not submit any documents along with his enquiry report, so noything could be commented.
b) The reason of his finding is best known to the enquiry officer , the undersigned is unable to say anything.
c) In fine the enquiry officer retired on superannuation.
Very fine reason provided . Did the concerned Public authority retire from the service ? Is it the proper procedure to submit departmental enquiry report withput any supporting documents ? How the Principal Secretary and the Hon'ble Minister-in charge accepted that report ?
(Corrupts of the world are united ?)
Another person asked for the reason of not taking any action against a corrupt officer , with all the relevent documentary evidence( received with the help of earlier different RTI applications, from the concerned dept)
The only reply was received after 1st appeal hearing- There is no recorded reasonin the file.

My question is is it possible to keep record on the file regarding the corrupt practice by the IAS officer and how and why he exonerated from all illegalities of that departmental officer ?
On inspection it was found that the Supervising officer only 'recorded'
as follow-- discussed.
Should we get only this type of 'reason' on applying under 4(1)(d) of RTI Act ? Considered opinion from the experienced activists are invited.