Central Information Commission
Mahesh Kumar vs Department Of Defence on 2 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MODEF/A/2023/643277
Mahesh Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
US (Vig/BR&MES),
341-A, B Wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.12.2024
Date of Decision : 30.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.06.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"(i) Inspection of documents, notes and files in respect of order bearing no 13011/14/2020/D(Vig-M&B/362 dated 12 April 2023 issued by MoD D( Vigilance-MES& BRO).Page 1 of 8
(ii) Inspection of documents, notes and files in respect of MoD Memorandum No. C-13011/14/2020/D(Vig-M&B/1280 dated 17.12.2020.
(iii) Inspection of documents, notes and files in respect of enquiry report was served on the charge officer wide MoD letter number No. C-
13011/14/2020/D(Vig-M&B/1101 dated 26.10.2021.
(iv) Inspection of CVC reports, E-n-C recommendations and notes of Disciplinary Authorities in respect of above cited order dated 12 April 2023.
(v) Inspection of Court of Inquiry findings, files and notes in respect of CA No. DG MAP/PH-II/ PKG-11/ Army2 of 2009-2010 against para4 of CTE observation."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.07.2023, held as under:
"WHEREAS an application of appeal by Shri Mahesh Kumar under RTI Act, 2005 have been received on 17.07.2023.
AND WHEREAS with respect to the information sought by the applicant, it is stated that the applicant may inspect permissible documents related to the case on 07.08.2023 under section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE after providing above information the appeal is hereby treated as disposed off. If the applicant is not satisfied with the above said information, he may prefer to file Second Appeal under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:
"....(B) Copies of selected documents have not been provided/made available after partial inspection of records on 07 Aug 2023. (C) (i) I was aggrieved as I did not receive any information from the CPIO, so I appealed FAA through online on 17 Jul 2023. (ii) The decision of the FAA was received through online disposal of appeal on 28 Jul 2023, allowing the applicant to inspect the permissible documents for the case on 07 Aug 2023.
(iii) Despite giving the date of August 07, neither the CPIO nor the FAA were Page 2 of 8 available in the office. Therefore I requested the Staff Officer to allow inspection of the documents as I have come from Chandigarh for this vary purpose. Therefore Staff Officer called the CPIO on his mobile, accordingly to which the Staff Officer showed the relevant files without Note/Minute Sheets.
The finding of the Court of Inquiry were also not shown/allowed for inspection in respect of observation No 04 of CTE.
Reasons for appeal.
(i) The CPIO, as per sub section (1) & 8 of section 7, shall either provide the information or reject it for any reasons for such rejection shall be communicated. But in the present case no information given by the CPIO.
(ii) As a result of non receiving any information from the CPIO an appeal was made to the FAA. The FAA has granted partial inspection of files without Note/Minute Sheet. However during inspection of files the selected documents are still not made available. Apart from this permission has not been given to inspect the Court of Inquiry report in respect of Observation No 04 of CTE.
(iii) Further as per Section 8(j) para 2 reproduced as under :-
"PROVIDED that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
Inspection of Note/Minute Sheet as well as Court of Inquiry in respect of Observation No 04 of CTE as desired in my application, cannot be denied to Parliament. Therefore this can not be denied to the applicant.
(iv) Keeping in view of above reasons the appeal to CIC is preferred. Relief Sought In view of the facts and the ground for and provision, the applicant prays for the following relief(s) :-
(i) To direct the CPIO/FAA to supply the entire inspection of Note/Minute Sheets as desired vide my application dated 06 Jun 2023.
(ii) To direct the CPIO/FAA to supply the entire documents selected during visit on 07 Aug 2023.
(iii) To direct the CPIO/FAA to supply the entire Court of Inquiry, files & notes in r/o CA No DGMAP/Ph-ll/PKG-11/Army 2 of 2009-2010 against Observation No 04 of CTE as desired in application dated 06 Jun 2023.
(iv) To grant any other relief as deemed fit and pertaining the above facts and circumstances.Page 3 of 8
(v) To grant the relief by imposing the penalties if any as per Act provn .
A written submission dated 19.12.2024 filed by Mr. Dalip Singh, U.S./CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"Brief Background of the case:
1. That Shri Mahesh Kumar vide his application dated 06.06.2024 requested for inspection of vigilance case file No. 13011/14/2020-D(Vig- MES&BRO) and CPIO vide their letter dated 28.07.2023 requested the appellant to inspect the permissible documents of vigilance case file on 07.08.2023.
2. That the appellant inspected the vigilance case file on 07.08.2023 and on same day vide his letter dated 07.08.2023, the appellant sought certain documents from the file which have been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure-A)
3. That the appellant in his letter dated 07.08.2023 has also shown his partial satisfaction with the information provided because vigilance case file notings and Staff Court of Inquiry Report was not shown to him.
4. With regard to dissatisfaction of appellant, CPIO while providing desired.
documents to the appellant vide his letter dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure A), in para 2 also clarified that as per Hon'ble Central Information Commission Order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated (08.02.2017 (Annexure-B), file notings in vigilance file are exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act (Copy attached), Further, with regard to Staff Court of Inquiry Report, CPIO clarified that no such inquiry conducted by this office.
Submissions:
5. That the appellant in his appeal has raised first issue of not providing noting sheets of vigilance case file No. 13011/14/2020-D(Vig- MES&BRO). In this regard it is submitted Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide Order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-B) has decided that the file notings in vigilance file are exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
6. That the Hon'ble Commission in case of Shri Akhilesh Shukla (who is co-
accused in case of appellant, Shri Mahesh Kumar Vs CPIO, vide Order No. CIC/DODEF/A/2023/637288 dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure-C) and 11 case of Shri Susmit Priyadarshi Vs PIO, vide Order No. CIC/MODEF/A/2023/649340 and Page 4 of 8 Order No. CIC/MODEF/A/2023/613374 dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure-D) has again upheld its earlier Order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 and decided that the noting sheets of vigilance file are exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
7. That the second issue agitated by the appellant Shri Mahesh Kumar is to provide copy of Staff Court of Inquiry report in file No. 13011/14/2020- D(Vig- MES & BRO). In this regard it is submitted that the Court of Inquiry CA No. DGMAP/PH-11/PKG/Army2 of 2009-10 has been convened by Army authorities i.e. GoC-in-C, Central Command and the office of CPIO has not been provided with complete Court of Inquiry report.
8. That, rest of information was duly provided to Shri Mahesh Kumar, the appellant against his RTI Application.
9. Hence, in submission of the present. Appeal before Hon'ble Commission, it is submitted that the case file of the Shri Mahesh Kumar is a Vigilance Case file wherein total 06 officers are involved and 04 officers, including Shri Mahesh Kumar has been awarded penalty of 'Reduction to lower stage in time-scale of pay by two stages for the period of one year and during period of such reduction the Government servant will earn increments and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay" vide order dated 23.04.2023. And case of remaining 02 officers have been submitted to Union Public Service Commission for decision on penalty.
10. Therefore, being a vigilance case, file notings are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act in compliance to the Hon'ble Central Information Commission Order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-B), Order No. CIC/DODEF/A/2023/637288 dated 26.11.2024 (Annexure-C), Order No Order No. CIC/MODEF/A/2023/649340 and CIC/MODEF/A/2023/613374 dated 10.05.2024 (Annexure-D)
11. Therefore, it is prayed that the present appeal of the appellant, Shri Mahesh Kumar may be disposed by upholding the information provided by the CPIO vide letter No. 31019/03/RT1/2022/D(Vig MES&BRO)/841 dated 25.08.2023."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.Page 5 of 8
Respondent: Mr. Dalip Singh, U.S./CPIO and Mr. Chandra Prakash Shukla, SO, MoD present in person.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his instant appeal contended that he is aggrieved by the fact that noting sheets of vigilance case file No. 13011/14/2020-D(Vig- MES&BRO) has not been shown to him during inspection despite the fact that it pertains to his own case where chargesheet was served on him along with other co-accused. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide copy of noting sheet to enable him to defend his case properly.
Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards his averred written submission stated that inspection of records has already been afforded to the appellant which was not denied by him. As regards file noting sheets in vigilance case, the respondent claimed that it cannot be disclosed in view of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. He further apprised the Commission that similar issue has already been adjudicated by this bench vide case File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2023/637288 wherein denial of noting sheets was upheld.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the records and in the light of the submissions tendered by the Respondent observes that issue under consideration has already been adjudicated by the predecessor bench vide case File No. CIC/DODEF/A/2023/637288 decided on 20.11.2024 with the following observations-
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply has been given to the appellant vide letter dated 01.06.2023. Further additional clarification was given by the respondent during the hearing particularly on point No. (e) of the RTI application which was taken on record in the above paras.
As regards point Nos. (a), (b) & (c) of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that note-sheets sought were confidential in nature and disclosure of Page 6 of 8 such information would endanger the life and identity of the concerned officers; thus, they expressed their inability to provide the same under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Perusal of the records reveal that case file of the Shri Akhilesh Shukla is a Vigilance Case file wherein total 06 officers are involved and 04 officers, including the appellant has been awarded penalty and case of remaining 02 officers is under submission with Union Public Service Commission for decision on penalty. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondent to provide copies of the file noting to the appellant.
Further, it may not be out of place to mention that the procedures of disciplinary proceedings have adequate safeguards to protect the interest of charged official and whenever disciplinary action is initiated, the appellant was free to raise all those points in the departmental inquiry. Thereafter, the appeal procedure within the department and finally the appellant was free to challenge the same in the court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant may not convert the right to information into a de novo inquiry. If the appellant was not provided complete documents or principle of natural justice was not followed by the disciplinary authority or aggrieved with the decision of the disciplinary authority or the disciplinary case appellate authority, the appellant has a right to file an appeal before an appropriate forum.
As regards the noting sheet the Respondent relies upon a judgment dated 19.01.2017, passed by predecessor bench of the Hon'ble Commission in the matter of Shri Satya Vijay Singh vs. CPIO, CVC bearing no.
CIC/SB/A/2015/000649, wherein the Hon'ble Commission has held as under:
"...In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005.Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act."
The Commission agrees with the stand of the Respondent as the ratio applies to the instant case as well. As regards the other points of RTI Application, an appropriate response has been furnished by the Respondent as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Page 7 of 8The ratio of the above said order holds good for the instant case as well. Moreover, the Commission has no power to review its own order on the same subject under the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be granted in this 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 Copy To:
The FAA, DS (Vig/BR&MES), B Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)