Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Suleman Bagsiraj vs Indian Army on 8 April, 2025

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2023/655715

Suleman Bagsiraj                                    .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                           VERSUS
                                            बनाम

PIO,
RTI Cell, HQ 28 Inf Div,
Pin - 908428, C/o 56 APO

2. The CPIO RTI Cell,
Addl. DG AE, G 6 D 1 Wing,
Integrated Headquarter of MoD
(Army) Sena Bhawan, Gate No 4,
 New Delhi - 110 011                                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                        :    26.03.2025
Date of Decision                       :    07.04.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                  Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on               :    07.07.2023
CPIO replied on                        :    14.08.2023
First appeal filed on                  :    14.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order      :    06.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated             :    19.12.2023

Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 07.07.2023seeking the following information:
"1. Pl ref the fwg: -
Page 1 of 4
(a) Covering letter of statutory complaint fwd vide HQ Western Comd letter No 25026/2/GS (Edn) dt 08 Apr 2023 (Photocopy att).
(b) AO Dec 2006 (Photocopy att).
2. It is mentioned at Para 14 of AO Dec 2006 that a complaint submitted by an individual to immediate superior auth, the Unit of the individual shall forward the complaint to the next higher HQ within 20 days along with the comments of CO Unit.
3. In view of the above, it is requested to provide para wise comments on my statutory complaint received from 628 EME Bn under RTI Act 2005, as three months have already passed by forwarding the statutory complaint."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.08.2023 stating as under:

"(a) Statutory complaint submitted by the complainant vide HQ Western Command GS(Edn) letter No 25026/2/GS(Edn) dt 08 April 2023 was received on 20 April 2023 by 628 EME Bn. Para wise comments to the complaint was fwd by 628 EME Bn to HQ 28 Inf Div (A Branch) on 10 May 2023.
(b) HQ 28 Inf Div (A Branch) raised an observation that Commanding Officer and Office-in-Charge, AEC Records were not found attached with complaint vide their letter No 6151/Stat/JCOS/OR/A1 dated 16 May 2023. Para wise comments on Statutory Complaint along with comments of Commanding Officer was resubmitted to HQ 28 Inf Div (A Branch) vide 628 EME BN letter No 21202/C/EME dated 07 Jun 2023."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 06.09.2023, held as under.

"4. AND NOW THEREFORE, after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find the reply provisioned to the appellant by the by the PIO vide RTI Cell letter No 4601/Hav Suleman/GS(Edn) (i) dated 14 August 2023 is not complete. I direct PIO to obtain requisite information from concerned stake holder of HQ 28 Infantry Division and provision the same to the appellant within three weeks on receipt of this order.
5. The appeal is therefore disposed off accordingly."

In compliance with the orders passed by the FAA, the PIO provided a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.09.2023, stating as under:

"2. Requisite information with respect to direction passed by First Appellate Authority vide Speaking Order No. 4601/Hav Suleman/GS(Edn) (i) dated 06 September 2023 is attached as appendix. Certain information related to ibid reply has been concealed under Sec 8 (1) (a) being sensitive information with respect to functioning of organisation and Sec 8 (1) (j) being third party information under RTI act 2005.
3. The appeal is therefore disposed off accordingly."
Page 2 of 4

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri JM Sharma, CPIO, attended the hearing in person. Shri Reuben Alex Sabu, PIO, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.09.2023. He added that the Statutory Complaint of the Appellant has been disposed on 01.07.2024 and the status of the same has been communicated to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received from Shri Reuben Alex Sabu, PIO, vide letter dated 26.03.2025, stating as under:
"1. Please refer hearing of CIC vide Notice No CIC/IARMY/A/2023/655715 dt 07 March 2025 conducted through VC at 1045hrs on 26 March 2025.
2. The Statutory complaint dated 31 March 2023 submitted by No 9515654X Havildar/Instructor Suleman Bagsiraj of 628 Electronic and Mechanical Engineers Battalion has been disposed off by the Order of the Chief of Army Staff issued vide file No C/05791/166/DV-3(A) dated 25 June 2024 and forwarded by Additional Directorate General (Discipline and Vigilance) Adjutant General's Branch Integrated HQ of MoD(Army), New Delhi vide their letter No C/05791/166/DV-3(A) dated 01 July 2024.
3. For your information please."

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that in compliance with the direction passed by the FAA, the PIO has provided a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act to the Appellant vide letter dated 25.09.2023. It is further observed that the written submission sent by the Respondent vide letter dated 26.03.2025, is more elaborate and is treated as updated reply but a copy of the same has not been Page 3 of 4 sent to the Appellant. Accordingly, Shri Reuben Alex Sabu, PIO, is directed to send a copy of the same along with relevant annexures to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. No further action is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)