Central Information Commission
Mr.A K S Panwar vs Ministry Of Defence on 20 June, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002460
Appellant : A.K.S. Panwar
Respondent : Indian Coast Guard
Date of hearing : 20.6.2013
Date of decision : 20.6.2013
FACTS
Heard today dated 20.6.13. Appellant present. The Coast Guard is represented by DIG Kalpit Dikshit, (AA), Shri M.V.Pathak, DIG (CPIO), Shri Gurcharan Singh Commdt. and Shri R.K.Sharma, SCSO
2. The parties are heard and the records perused. Vide RTI application dated 21.5.12, the appellant had sought the following about Ex DG P Paleri, PTM, TM:
i) Date and rank on joining Coast Guard (CG) service
ii) Type of entry
iii) Service/employment prior joining CG
iv) Date and branch of Commission in Navy
v) Date of release/retirement from Navy
vi) Total Commissioned service in Navy
vii) No. of promotions attained in Navy and final rank at realse/retirement.
viii) Date of promotion to Dy. Comdt.
ix) Date of promotion to Comdt. Bench mark, Numbers considered and promoted by DPC.
x) Date of promotion to DIG. Bench mark, Numbers considered and promoted by DPC.
xi) Date of promotion to IG. Bench mark, Numbers considered and promoted by DPC.
xii) Date of promotion to DG. Bench mark, Numbers considered and promoted by DPC.
xiii) Date of retirement from CG service.
3. During the hearing, it transpires that information on paras 1, 2 and 8 to 13 has already been supplied to the appellant. However, as regards paras 3 to 7, CPIO in his letter dated 18.7.12 has refused to disclose this information on the basis of objections filed by the third party.
4. The appellant, however, would submit that Ex DG P. Paleri could not have been given reemployment in the Central Govt. Unless information requested for in these paras had been supplied by him to the Central Govt. / Coast Guard. n the premises, CPIO is hereby directed to revisit the matter and if information requested for in these paras is available, the same may be supplied to the appellant regardless of the objections filed by Shri Paleri.
5. As regards para 9 to 12, the appellant submits that date of various promotions given to Ex DG P. Paleri have been provided to him but information related to benchmark etc has not been provided. In my opinion, the appellant is not entitled to this information and hence, I uphold the decision of the CPIO in this regard.
6. During the hearing, the appellant also submits that this Commission's decision dated 24.11.11 in File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/001942 has not been fully complied with. On the other hand Shri Dixit denies this allegation. In the premises, the CPIO is hereby directed to revisit the matter and satisfy himself that this Commission's order has been fully complied with. In case, there is any deficiency in complying with the order, the same to be made good in two weeks time and an affidavit filed to this effect with the Commission with a copy thereof to the appellant.'
7. In addition to the above, it is also ordered that information regarding the number of officers considered for promotion and number of officers actually promoted from 1st Batch to 6th Batch may also be supplied to the appellant. It is, however, made clear that no information regarding benchmark would be supplied.
Sd/ (M.L.Sharma) Information Commissioner 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.
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO Tatrakshak Mukhyalaya Coast Guard Headquarters National Stadium Complex New Delhi 110 001
2. Shri A.K.S.Panwar Bldg. No.42, H.No.6 CPWD Quarters Besant Nagar Chennai 600 090