Central Information Commission
Manmohan Taneja vs National Defence College on 21 January, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/NDEFC/A/2019/103129+103130+103133
In the matter of:
Manmohan Taneja
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
National Defence Academy,
PO - NDA Khadakwasla
Pune - 411023
... Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/01/2021
Date of Decision : 19/01/2021
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second appeal
filed on replied on filed on Order on filed on
103129 15/07/2018 27/07/2018 08/08/2018 13/10/2018 08/01/2019
103130 14/07/2018 27/07/2018 07/08/2018 13/10/2018 07/01/2019
103133 16/07/2018 27/07/2018 09/08/2018 13/10/2018 16/01/2019
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant cover the same issues as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties during the hearing were the same for all the cases. Hence, for the sake of brevity, the cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over intra VC Respondent: Lt. Cmdr. Mahavir Arya, representative of the CPIO, present over VC 1 Information Sought:
In File no: CIC/NDEFC/A/2019/103129, the appellant had sought the following information:
1. What all constitutes as "absence from the training". Provide the copy of documents/SOP/AI's/AO's/Administrative Instructions of NDA governing the ruling for "what all constitutes as absence from the training" for Relegation of a Cadet on Medical grounds, while under training at NDA, for the period from 1996 to 2000, from 2001 to 2010 and 2011 to till date.
2. Whether Ex-PT, Ex-Drill and Ex-PPG is same as Ex-OD? whether both of these i.e. Ex-PT/Ex-Drill/Ex-PPG and EX-OD are counted in "same ratio or not" as missing days of training for relegation of a Cadet on Medical Grounds in NDA?
3. Whether a Cadet, who was SHAPE-I, "Reporting Sick" in the Morning Routine Sick Report hours/Evening Routine Sick Report hours or in Special Sick Report, counted as Missing Day of Training? If yes, then in what ratio 1/3rd (33%) or 1/4th (25%) as compared to Hospitalization/Bed Rest, for counting total number of missing days of training, for relegation of a Cadet, on medical grounds, during the period from 1996 to 2000, from 2001 to 2010 and 2011 to till date, in NDA.
4. And other related information In File no: CIC/NDEFC/A/2019/103130, the appellant had sought the following information:
1. Provide the complete copy of documents/SOP/AI's/AO's/Administrative instructions issued by NDA explaining:
(a) the meaning and difference among Ex-OD (Excuse Outdoors), Ex-PT, Excuse Drill, Attend Academics Classes only, Ex-PPG, Attend 'C'/Bed Rest /Hospitalization/SIQ.
(b) the meaning and difference between a Low Medical Category (LMC) and various excuses (restriction imposed while in SHAPE-I) i.e Ex-PT, Ex-Drill, Ex-
PPG and Ex-OD in legal terms, granted to a cadet, in respect of their counting towards total number of missing training days, for relegation on Medical 2 Grounds during training at NDA, for the period from 1996 to 2000, from 2001 to 2013 and 2014 to till date.
(c) and (d) - Other related information.
(2) Whether a Cadet, who was SHAPE-I, and given temporary intermittent (Not Continuous) excuses (restrictions) of Ex-PG, Ex-Drill and Ex-PPG for 24 hrs, 48 hrs, 72 Hrs or a week (i.e a Cadet is fit for all activities/ duties except for the restriction stipulated for a particular period say PT or Drill or games, if at all that period falls in that day of training, or sometimes that period not even fall in the training day, for which doctor gave the excuse) was counted as missing days of training in NDA? If yes, then in what ratio 1/3rd (33%) or 1/4th (25) as compared to Hospitalization/Bed Rest, for counting total number of missing days of training, for relegation of a Cadet, on medical grounds, while under training in NDA, for the period from 1996 to 2000, from 2001 to 2014 and 2014 to till date.
3. And other related information.
In File no: CIC/NDEFC/A/2019/103133, the appellant had sought the following information:
1. Provide the complete copies with all their annexures and appendix of "Standing ORDERS PART-II (orders and instructions regarding cadets training and administration (yellow book) applicable to Cadets while under training at NDA for the period from 1996 to 2000, from 2001 to 2010 and 2011 to till date.
2. Provide copies along with all their annexure and appendix of "Instructions pertaining to the functioning and administration of NDA" issued vide HQ IDS letter No. IDS/40027/13Policy/TRADOC/TSI dated 28/07/2006.
3. Provide copies along with all their annexure and appendix of "Instructions pertaining to the functioning and administration of NDA" issued by AHQ from time to time, applicable to Cadets while under training at NDA, for the period from 1996 to 2000, from 2001 to 2010 and from 2011 to till date.
4. And other related information.3
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied providing the desired information under Sec.8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the exemption claimed by the CPIO is totally irrelevant as he had sought such information which is purely administrative in nature and relates to the policy matters of the respondent authority. While giving the background of the case, he submitted that he was granted Short Service Commission (on probation) in the rank of 'Lt.' and underwent training al Indian Military Academy (IMA), Dehradun for grant of permanent commission in the Army. Thereafter he was wrongly relegated on Medical grounds and later invalidated out from Service/training on Medical Grounds with 30% disability attributable to Military Service/training and in order to seek justice he had sought the above mentioned information. He also submitted that his queries are about small administrative ruling/clarification, terminology, definition and their meaning, basics of the training which are uniformly interpreted in all Defence training academies for counting total number of missing days of training, specifically, for relegation of a cadet on Medical Grounds as in his case the period of 13 days of him being missing from training was counted as 58 days for the deliberate purpose of relegating him. He also placed on record the various documents related to his case.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 27.07.2018. He further submitted that National Defence Academy (NDA) is the joint services academy of the Indian Armed Forces, where cadets of the three services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force train together before they go on to respective service academies for further training. He also submitted that it is not necessary that all the training Institutes will follow the same procedures and that NDA imparts ab-initio training to the Cadets.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant on 27.07.2018 whereby the CPIO had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act and it was clearly explained that the information pertains to the aspect of the military training at National Defence 4 Academy and includes important aspects of the defence and security of the state/country. Hence, these critical details of training that reveal the benchmark of the standard and capability of military forces and their training cannot be disclosed and if disclosed in public domain, the same will accrue no benefits to the Academy or the country. It may rather harm and prejudice the security and military training capabilities in future. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO as it has been clearly explained as to why such information cannot be disclosed. Hence, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
It is brought to the notice of the appellant that his contention that he was relegated on illegal grounds may be valid, however the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions has held that the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
In this context, the observation made by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 is relevant. He relevant para is reiterated as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute.
The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
In a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
" 6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has 5 to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7 . In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme."
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
6