Central Information Commission
Keyur Patel vs Border Security Force on 6 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BDRSF/C/2023/656342
Shri Keyur Patel शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Border Security Force
Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.11.2023
PIO replied on : 21.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 20.12.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"How many days reliving period for bsf officers after tendered resignation is being by the officer?
Is there how many rupees need to be paid by officer for quiting the job before 10 years of service who has not undergone any training?
Is there how many rupees need to be paid by officer for quiting the job before 10 years of service who has undergone basic training?"
The CPIO, Border Security Force vide letter dated 21.11.2023 replied as under:-
2. "उपरोक्त के संदर्भ में आपको अवगत ककया जाता है कक सूचना के अकिकार अकिकनयम 2005 की िारा-24 (1) के तहत सीमा सुरक्षा बल केन्द्रीय सरकार का एक सुरक्षा संस्था (Security Organization) होने के नाते, इस अकिकनयम की Page 1 कितीय अनुसूची में शाकमल है तथा इस कानून के प्राविान से (भ्रष्टाचार व मानवाकिकार उल्लंघन के मामले को छोड़कर) छूट प्रदान की गई है ।
3. उपरोक्त के मद्देनजार, हम आपके िारा मां गी गई सूचना को उपलब्ध कराने में असमथभता व्यक्त करते हैं क्ोंकक आपके िारा मां गी गई सूचना सूचना अकिकार अकिकनयम 2005' की िारा 24 के तहत नहीं आती है ।"
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2023 The FAA vide order dated 11.01.2024 stated as under:
आपके द्वारा आर.टी.आई अनुरोध, पंजीकरण संख्या BSECF/R/ E/23/01173 शदनांक 07.11.2023 के तहत मांगी गई जानकारी के संबंध में सी.पी.आई.ओ. द्वारा शदए गए जवाब का अध्ययन शकया गया तथा इस संबंध में सी.पी.आई. ओ को आपके द्वारा मांगी गई जानकारी को उपलब्ध करने का शनदे ि शदया गया है ।
In compliance of FAA, the PIO has furnished reply dated 19.01.2024 as under:
क) बल के शकसी भी काशमाक का त्यागपत्र तब प्रभावी होता है जब इसे स्वीकार कर शलया जाता है और सरकारी कमाचारी को कताव्ों से मुक्त कर शदया जाता है। शनयमानुसार शनयुक्तक्त प्राशधकारी त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करने के शलए सक्षम है । ख) यशद सीमा सुरक्षा बल का कोई कमाचारी शजसने 10 वर्ा की सेवा पूणा नहीं की है तथा बुशनयादी प्रशिक्षण भी प्राप्त नहीं शकया है तो उसे सेवात्याग जाने हेतु तीन माह का वेतन सरकारी खजाने में जमा करवाना होता है। ग) यशद सीमा सुरक्षा बल में कायारत कोई कमाचारी शजसने 10 वर्ा की सेवा पूणा नहीं की है तथा बुशनयादी प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त कर चुका है तो उसे सेवात्याग जाने हेतु तीन माह के वेतन एवं भत्ते या बुशनयादी प्रशिक्षण की लागत, जो भी अशधक, हो, को सरकारी खजाने में जमा करवाना होता है।
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 18.12.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
6. It is pertinent to mention here that, the Officer tendered notice for Resignation from service w.e.f. 30.06.2023 which was received at FHQ BSF N/Delhi at very last moment on 26.06.2023. Since there was no time left to process Resignation case of the Officer, as such concerned Unit/HQr was directed to forward fresh notice of resignation by giving sufficient time. Accordingly, the officer tendered another notice for resignation from service w.e.f. 31.07.2023 and the same was approved by CA (MHA) which was conveyed to all concerned vide our Letter Page 2 No. 16/559/23/Med/Dr. KMP/BSF/6852-91 dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure R-6).
7. Further, BSF Rule-19 provides that while granting such permission "require the officer to refund to the Government such amount as would constitute the cost of training given to that officer or three months pay and allowances, whichever is higher, or provided further that an officer of the Force tendering resignation, for accepting a job under Central or State Government or local bodies, after having been granted cadre clearance for the same or who has completed 10 years of service shall not be required to refund the sum as provided here in above" (Annexure R-7). Since the Officer has not undergone for basic training, accordingly 03 Bn BSF has calculated charges on the grounds of 03 months' salary of the Officer.
8. Since information sought by the complainant vide his RTI request dated 07.11.2023 has already been provided as such, the Hon'ble Central, Information Commissioner may like to dismiss the instant appeal, being infructuous.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not Present Respondent: Mr. Karni Singh Shekhawat, BSF- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that reply has been duly provided to the Complainant within stipulated time frame. Furthermore, in compliance of order of FAA a revised reply has been duly provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Page 3 Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Page 4 Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशभप्रमाशणत सत्याशपत प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)