Central Information Commission
Pranava Shukla vs Sashastra Seema Bal, on 7 July, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SSBAL/A/2019/154626
CIC/SSBAL/A/2019/154638
Shri Pranava Shukla ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
SSB
Date of Hearing : 06.07.2021
Date of Decision : 07.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
154626 03.05.2019 07.06.2019 17.06.2019 13.09.2019 14.11.2019
154638 29.04.2019 07.06.2019 17.06.2019 13.08.2019 14.11.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/SSBAL/A/2019/154626 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.05.2019 seeking information in reference of Memorandum No. 6/65/2013/SSB/Pers-I(B)/6234-35 dated 15.04.2019 as under:-
a. Certified copy of order of inquiry.
b. Certified copy of Court of inquiry and c. All related documents to inquiry which is mentioned in "Annexure 1" (conducted/submitted by Sh. Dhiraj Kumar, DC, 48 th BN) The CPIO /DIG, Sector Hqr. SSB Muzaffarpur vide letter dated 07.06.2019 replied as under:-Page 1 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2019. The FAA/IG, Frontier Hqr. SSB, vide order dated 13.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/SSBAL/A/2019/154638 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2019 seeking information on following point:-
A complaint was sent by Smt. Priya Tiwari against applicant at Force Headquarter, SSB, New Delhi (Refer to FAZ/WAN MSG No. 65/E-II/RTI/SHQ- MZPR/16-17/U/1035 dated 22.02.2019 sent by Sector HQ, SSB, Muzaffarpur to Commandant, 18 Bn, SSB, Rajnagar). It is requested that it may be informed whether any inquiry (of any nature) was conducted on the basis of above mentioned complaint by order of Deputy Inspector General, Sector Headquarter SSB, Muzaffarpur. If Yes, certified copy of the inquiry be provided to applicant.
The CPIO /DIG, Sector Hqr. Sashastra Seems Bal (SSB) Muzaffarpur vide letter dated 07.06.2019 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2019. The FAA/IG, Frontier Hqr. SSB, vide order dated 13.08.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and DIG, SHQ, SSB Muzaffarpur vide letter dated 29.06.2021 (Second Appeal No CIC/SSBAL/A/2019/154626 wherein reiterating the replies provided to the Appellant it was stated that the action taken by the CPIO is appropriate as per Section 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act. The Appellant insisted that his human rights were violated. However, section 24 is clear that information against violation of human rights is to be provided with the approval of the CIC. Thus information provided vide letter dated 07.06.2019 stands on merit. It was also stated that for official communications made with the officer, official language has been used as per office procedure. The Order of Enquiry asked by the Appellant Page 2 of 4 was for a discreet enquiry and not a formal enquiry. Hence, no order of enquiry was provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, no court of enquiry was ordered till 03.05.2019.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that no information was provided to him by the CPIO/ FAA. He alleged that baseless complaints were filed by his wife Ms Priya Tiwari to Mahila Thana, Bhopal and SSB, New Delhi which were investigated without following the principles of natural justice and without recording his statements or giving him opportunity to submit evidence. He alleged violation of his human rights on the grounds that memos were issued in order to intimidate him.
The Respondent represented by Shri K Ranjit Singh, DIG, SSB, Muzaffarpur participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that essentially the Appellant wanted redressal of his grievance pertaining to a service matter, the records of which were available with the 18 th Batallion for which he should have approached an appropriate forum.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that a clear, cogent and reasoned response was not provided to the Appellant by the CPIO/ FAA. The exemption claimed under Section 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the written submission now provided to the Commission is also devoid of any reason. Thus, the Commission directs Shri Pankaj Kumar Darad, FAA and IG Frontier HQ, SSB Patna to re- examine the first appeal and pass a cogent and speaking order after granting an opportunity of fair hearing to the Appellant. The above mentioned direction should be complied with by 31.08.2021 under intimation to the Commission.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 4 Copy to
1. Shri Pankaj Kr Darad, FAA and IG Frontier HQ, SSB Patna, 3rd floor, Karpuri Thakur Sadan, GPOA Building, Ashiana Digha Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Police Station, Patna 800025 Page 4 of 4