Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar Singh vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 13 October, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.
CIC/SSBAL/A/2019/116020
Shri Deepak Kumar Singh ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
CPIO
Sashastra Seema Bal, Darjeeling
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2021
Date of Decision : 13.10.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.12.2018
PIO replied on : 01.01.2019
First Appeal filed on : 20.01.2019
First Appellate Order on : 18.02.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 05.04.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2018 seeking information on the following points:-
1. During my posting at 41/63 BN SSB (deputation tenure) l conducted more than 90 ops(having official record with me) out of which approx. 40 ops were conducted in depth area which did not fall under jurisdiction of SSB. Kindly provide information whether these ops were conducted without knowledge of competent authority or any written permission was asked and was permission in writing accorded in each case.
2. Whether on every occasions ops were not being conducted on verbal approval? Was conducting ops out of jurisdiction restricted? If so how 42 ops beyond jurisdiction were conducted under my command
3. On 22.02.2018 during performing duty in national interest and in the process of saving life of under command and myself when both were forcefully abducted by antinational elements, one of the ANE was found dead. Though it was a joint ops with police but due to unknown reason they hided the fact and denied the joint ops but more surprisingly SSB also denied about conducting ops by 63 BN SSB Page 1 of 3 troops and also informed in writing to police that 63rdRD BN is reserve Bn and not authorized to conduct ops. I want information that if 63rd BN SSB was not authorized for ops even joint ops than how I conducted 42 ops in depth area, out of jurisdiction of SSB and what disciplinary action was taken against undersigned by higher headquarters of SSB for conducting ops beyond jurisdiction. Does acceptance of conducting ops in depth area not show permission of higher headquarters?
4. Was any disciplinary action initiated against Sh. Manoranjan Pandey 2ic and other personnel of 63 BN SSB against whom corruption and financial irregularities reported by undersigned to IG Frontier headquarters SSB Siliguri, after taking over charge of officiating commandant of 63 BN SSB in the M/O May 2017.
The CPIO/Deputy Inspector General, SSB vide letter dated 01.01.2019 intimated the Appellant that under section 24 of RTI Act, 2005, SSB is exempted from the provisions of the said Act except in the case pertaining to corruption and Human Right Violation. Hence, information on point No. 1 to 3 cannot be provided as no case of corruption and human rights violation is involved on the part of the Force. Further, information on point 4 being third party information has been dealt with under section 11 of RTI Act, 2005 and the third party has sent a written submission not to disclose the information or record. Hence, information sought cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.01.2019. The FAA/ Inspector General, SSB vide order dated 18.02.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and DIG, Frontier HQ, SSB, Siliguri dated nil wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information sought should be disclosed as it pertained to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the ground that he undertook an operation without the approval of the competent authority.
The Respondent represented by Shri Thomas Chacko, DIG, SSB, Darjeeling participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that the information sought pertained to the joint operations carried out by the public authority which cannot be disclosed being sensitive and confidential Page 2 of 3 information pertaining to the security of the state. Furthermore, since their organisation was exempted u/s 24 of the Act, the information can only be disclosed if the issues raised by the Appellant pertained to allegations of corruption or human rights violation which is not the case in the present instance. Explaining the background of the matter, Shri Chacko also stated that action was taken against the Appellant following the due process of law.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response has been provided by the CPIO/ FAA as no allegation of corruption or violation of human rights has been substantiated by the Appellant. As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CBI, New Delhi vs CIC and Anr, WP (C) 11092/ 2017 decided on 02.02.2018, it is a settled position of law that service matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of an organization exempted from the purview of the RTI Act as per Section 24 of the Act cannot be classified as human rights violations. Furthermore, the Commission also concurs with the stand of the Respondent regarding non- disclosure of information sought in point no 4 of the RTI application as the same pertained to a third party employee exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the instant Second Appeal which is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3