Central Information Commission
Sukesh Kumar Singh vs Indian Navy on 25 November, 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/INAVY/C/2020/691366+
CIC/INAVY/A/2020/674064
In the matter of:
Sukesh Kumar Singh
...Complainant/Appellant
VS
1. Central Public Information Officer
Headquarters Western Naval Command, 5th Floor,
HQMAGNA Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai-400023
2. Central Public Information Officer
The Admiral Superintendent,
Naval Dockyard, Mumbai - 400023
...Respondent
File No. 691366 674064 RTI application filed on : 03/09/2019 03/09/2019 CPIO replied on : 11/10/2019 11/10/2019 First appeal filed on : 22/11/2019 22/11/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 05/03/2020 05/03/2020 Complaint filed on : 03/11/2020 13/06/2020 Date of Hearing : 24/11/2021 24/11/2021 Date of Decision : 24/11/2021 24/11/2021 The following were present:
Complainant/Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Capt. B.P. Midag, CPIO's representative - present over phone Information Sought:
The complainant/appellant has sought the following information:1
1. Copy of merit list prepared by Dockyard Apprentice School, Mumbai in 2000 after completion of 72nd AITT for absorption/appointment of ex- apprentices of 62 batch, IT-01 (02 year) and IT-02 batch (01 year).
2. Copy of letter published by the office of Admiral Superintendent Naval Dockyard, Mumbai related to absorption/appointment of ex-apprentices of 62 Batch, IT-01 Batch (2 Year) & IT-02 Batch (1 year).
3. Copy of merit list prepared by Dockyard Apprentice School, Mumbai in 1999 after completion of 70th AITT for absorption/appointment of ex- apprentices 60 Batch & IT-01 Batch (1 Year).
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Complaint/Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant/Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant/Appellant has stated that he has been given incomplete information and the reply was not despatched by the CPIO in time. Further, the FAA also passed a delayed order without giving him an opportunity for hearing and has also furnished false and misleading information. He wants an enquiry to be instituted against the CPIO and FAA for providing false, misleading and incomplete information and failure to give timely information. He also desires that disciplinary action be recommended and penalty be imposed on both these officers for these failings. He has also demanded compensation towards incidental costs of his complaint. He further drew attention to the written submissions sent to the Commission dated 21.11.2021 wherein all the previous submissions have been reiterated.
The appellant/complainant during the hearing stated that he is not satisfied with the reply given as the reply is wrong as the correct list has not been given to him. He is also aggrieved as certified copies of the document were not given.
The CPIO's representative reiterated the contents of the reply given on 11.10.2019 wherein a point wise reply had been given for all the 15 points of the RTI application.Certain information was not given by seeking exemption u/s 8(1)(j) as these contained personal information of other employees. For some others, the appellant was asked to visit their office to obtain the information and some information was denied u/s 8(1)(a) as disclosure of the same was considered prejudicial to the security and strategic interest of the state.
During the hearing, the rep. of the CPIO agreed to resend the documents given after duly certifying them. He also stated that after the notice for hearing was received, they once again tried to locate the list which is over 20 years old.
2They have now found the merit list of the year 2000 and are willing to share the same with the appellant/complainant. As far as the delay in passing the FAA order is concerned, he explained that there was a lot of correspondence that took place between the Naval Dockyard and the Western Naval Command before the order was passed and this caused the delay.
Observations:
The two cases of the appellant being the same, except that one is a complaint and the other a second appeal have been clubbed and taken up together for decision.
Having gone through the detailed submissions of the appellant/complainant and the submissions and reply of the CPIO, the Commission finds that appropriate replies have been given for all the points but certified copies should be given and now that the merit list of the year 2000 has been found the same should be certified and sent to the appellant. The FAA has passed a delayed order for which the CPIO submitted his explanation. The Commission is however not in agreement with the reasons for the long delay and warns the FAA to remain extremely careful and ensure following the laid down timelines in future.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the appellant the above stated information and certified copies within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal/complaint is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 3 4