Central Information Commission
Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01286 dated 14-7-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Ms. Neetu Pandey
Respondent: Border Security Force (BSF)
Decision announced: 18.12.2009
FACTS
By an application of 8-4-08 Ms. Neetu Pandey of Lodhi Colony, New Delhi applied to the DG, BSF Shri A.K. Mitra seeking the following information:
"I want to know under RTI Act, 2005 that what action has been taken against D V Saraswat under CCS Conduct Rules 1964 on the following points;-
i) Whether D V Saraswat is still in govt. service. If yes, on which date he is to be retired? If not his date of retirement is to be intimated.
ii) Every time D V Saraswat put himself as a guardian of Raju Saraswat. In matrimonial column of Times of India dated 18.7.2004 Raju Saraswat has given the address of D V Saraswat of Jodhpur (certified copy enclosed please).
iii) Taking dowry on 23.11.2004 on the date of my marriage at 37, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi-23.
iv) Influencing and misusing his official position on the basis of which he and his wife was not arrested by Delhi Police.
v) Misusing govt vehicle (nilli batti wali Ambassador Car) on dated 10.9.2004, 11.9.2004, 14.9.2004 and 23.11.2004.
On 23.11.2004 the groom came at community centre, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi in that nilli batti wali Car at the reception gate of community centre along with D V Saraswat and Kusum Saraswat, which photographs and video are available with me and were also sent to you along with my complaint dated 30.7.2005."
It seems that Ms. Neetu Pandey received no reply to this which caused her to repeat the application on 8-5-08 to DG BSF, upon which she received the following reply dated 16-5-08from Shri D.K. Upadhyay, Addl. DIG (Confidential) BSF:
"It is to inform you that BSF is a Security Organization of Govt of India and that a qualified exemption has been given under section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 to BSF. As such, no information relating to this Organization can be provided."1
Thereafter, Ms. Pandey moved a third application dated 24-5-08 before the DG, BSF which we have treated as first appeal, pleading as follows:
"I am not seeking information about a Security Organization like 'BSF' but information about a corrupt employee of 'BSF' who has taken dowry on dated 23.11.2004 (date of my marriage), misused Govt. money, vehicle and his official position and thus has violated human rights. It is also stated that 'BSF' is not a SECRET organization but is an OPEN department of Govt. of India under Ministry of Home Affairs.
'BSF' cannot hide the action taken on my complaints dated 30.7.2005 and 4.11.2005 in respect of grave offences committed by D. V. Saraswat. If so, then the department is favouring him blindly. Any organization is not above the law framed by the parliament in the year 2005 i.e. RTI Act, 2005."
On not receiving a response Ms. Pandey has moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is requested that DG, BSF, may kindly be directed to provide information about DV Saraswat, DIG, BSF under RTI Act, 2005 about the sub-para i. ii, iii and iv of para 2."
The sub-paras in question are as follows:
"i) Taking dowry on 23.11.2004 on the date of marriage at 37, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi.
ii) Influencing SHO/ IO and misusing his official position on the basis of which he and his wife were not arrested by the police.
iii) Misusing govt. vehicle (nili bati wali ambassador car) on 10.9.04, 11.9.04, 14.9.04 and 23.11.2006. On 23.11.2004 the groom came at Community Centre, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi in that nilibati wali car at the Reception gate of Community Centre, along with DV Saraswat, and Kusum Saraswat, photos and video of which are available with me and those photos were also sent to the then DG, BSF along with my complaints dated 30.7.2005.
iv) Every time DV Saraswat put himself as a guardian of Raju Saraswat. In Matrimonial column of Times of India, dated 18.7.2007, Raju Saraswat has given the address of DV Saraswat of Jodhpur (certified copy has already been sent to you on 8.5.2008 along with my 1st appeal)."
The appeal was heard on 18-12-2009. The following are present:
Appellant Ms. Neetu Pandey Shri R. R. Pandey, assisting appellant 2 Respondents Shri M. Tripathi, DIG Shri Vijay Yadav, COMDT Shri Neeraj, DIG Shri Karamvir Singh, SI/ Min Because the application contains allegations of corrupt misuse of authority by DIG, Mr. Saraswat it clearly amounts to allegations of corruption. This, of course, was not clarified in the earlier application of 8-4-08 and 8-5-08 of appellant Ms. Neetu Pandey but has indeed been clarified in the letter of 24-5-08 written in response to the reply received by her on 16-5-08 from Addl. DG Shri Upadhyay. Upon this Shri M. Tripathi, DIG, BSF submitted that this is the reason why in his response of 16-7-08 Shri Balbir Singh, DIG (Personnel) had indeed provided the information sought by Ms. Neetu Pandey as follows:
"Regarding misuse of Govt. vehicle, department has already taken an appropriate action against Shri D. V. Saraswat, Addl. DG.
As regards case of dowry, a FIR No. 268/05 U/S 498-A/406 IPC dated 31st May 2005 has been lodged by you at P. S. Sarojini Nagar and the case is sub-judice in the Hon'ble Court of Mahila Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, therefore, no comments can be offered."
A copy of this letter is not on our file since the appeal had been moved before us on 12-7-08. Shri R.R. Pandey assisting the appellant agreed that, in fact, the response of 16-7-08 has been received, but on the issue of misuse of Government vehicle although a reply has been given, the action on the complaint has not been provided other than the assurance that "department has already taken an appropriate action".
DECISION NOTICE:
There are clear allegations of corruption in the application of Ms. Neetu Pandey. It is, however, true that in the original applications this issue had not been clarified and, therefore, the BSF was within its right to not provide information in this regard. Nevertheless, even where information was not to be provided the BSF is advised that such refusal should be made available on receipt of an RTI application that is not eligible for consideration, within the 3 time limit specified under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. This institutional framework can be a part of the framework which this organisation will, no doubt, have set up to service applications under the RTI Act which are eligible for consideration under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 24. We notice that even the response to the appeal of 24-5-08 has been sent only on 16-7-08 whereas under Section 19 (6) such a response is expected to be "disposed of within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal or even such extended period not exceeding a total of 45 days from the date of filing thereof as the case may for reasons to be recorded in writing"1 .
This points to the requirement of the BSF to take such steps as are necessary to secure compliance with provisions of the Act which, therefore, they are directed to do u/s 19 (8) (a) (i) and (v) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the present case, however, we find that the answer to questions 1 and 2 has now been provided. On the question at serial No.3 although the fact is indeed disclosed that action has been taken, this does not answer the question of 'what action has been taken against D V Saraswat under CCS Conduct Rules 1964'. This will now be disclosed to appellant within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice. Question at serial No. 4 does not amount to an allegation of corruption but is only a simple complaint and, therefore, cannot merit a response from the BSF, a para-military force listed at serial No. 9 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005. Appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. There will be no costs, but any information now provided will be free of cost as per Sec 7(6) Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18-12-2009 1 Emphasis added to highlight the importance given the matter of limitation of time limits 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18-12-2009 5