Central Information Commission
Raj Kapoor vs Military Engineer Services on 23 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/MESER/C/2023/634058, CIC/MESER/C/2023/134105
CIC/MESER/C/2023/134106, CIC/MODEF/C/2023/635404
CIC/MODEF/C/2023/637001, CIC/MESER/C/2023/632081
CIC/MESER/C/2023/632126, CIC/MESER/C/2023/634059
CIC/MESER/C/2023/634060, CIC/MESER/C/2023/636700
CIC/MESER/C/2023/636701, CIC/MESER/C/2023/639403
Raj Kapoor ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1.PIO,
Central Record Office (Officers),
Military Engineer Services, Tigris Road,
Delhi Cantt - 110 010
2. The CPIO Engineer-in-Chief's Branch
Kashmir House integrated HQ of MoD (Army)
DHQ PO, New Delhi-110 100
3. PIO,
CPIO/E1D Engineer-in-Chief's Branch
Kashmir House integrated HQ of MoD
(Army) DHQ PO, New Delhi-110 011
4. PIO,
Ministry of Defence, Room No 305
- 'B' Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
Page 1 of 38
5. PIO,
Military Engineer Services,
P-25, Kirby Place, Delhi Cantonment,
New Delhi- 110010
6. PIO,
Military Engineer Services,
P-25, Kirby Place, Delhi Cantonment,
New Delhi - 110010 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 15.10.2024
Date of Decision : 22.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The instant complaints (12 in Nos.) have been clubbed together for disposal
through common order as these are based on similar nature of information
sought by the complainant by filing these RTI applications.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/634058
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 26.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 10.07.2023
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1 pl find enclosed herewith copies of my letters addressed to CRO (0) MES (31 May 23 and 19 june 22) copy of which is endorsed to MOD and HQ E-
in-c branch .pl intimate action taken by MOD and HQ E-in-c on ibid representations to expedite release of gratuity withheld illegally by CRO(0) MES from last 15 months by taking plea of illegal and non est charge memo dated 15 Feb 22( projected by CE northern command in Page 2 of 38 absence of records as per his reply on pg portals), against a charge against which I had already been punished on 06 January 2009 (copy enclosed) and I had undergone the punishment from 06 Jan 09 to 05 Jan12 (copy enclosed) as represented in my representation dated 26 Feb 22 (copy enclosed), 02 Feb23,17 March 23, 17 May 23, 24 May 23 and 31 May 23 and 19 June 23.
2 which action has been taken against CRO (0) MES for rendering a vague inappropriate reply under his letter no CRO/4/12/vlp/491/coord on 02 Dec 22 that disciplinary action is pending on account of charge memo issued by CE Northern command on 15 Feb 22, without first seeking decision on my representation dated 26 February 22 from my appointing authority or MOD despite my repeated representations from last 16 month.
3 who is overall accountable to create interest liability against govt by not releasing my gratuity for 17 months as on date despite knowing of offence of CE northern command in issuing charge memo of 15 Feb 22 against case which was already decided on 06 Jan 09 from my representation dt 26 Feb22.
4-(a) kindly intimate why CRO (o) of MES who has been declared as HOO under financial rules has not got the misconduct of CE northern command (or any body else) rectified or nullified from HQ E-in-c branch or from MOD from last 16 months despite receipt of my representation dated 26 Feb 22 and so many others as referred under srl Item 1and 2 above.
(b) How long CRO (0) will sit over his in appropriate plea of pending memo dt 15 feb 22 without getting misconduct rectified when he is responsible to get it nullified/rectified after receipt my letter dt 26 Feb22 (copy enclosed) pl intimate if he has not get the misconduct rectified/nullified then who has to do it.
(c) Intimate what is my fault in matter and why I suffer in getting my superannuation gratuity when I have already undergone the punishment on the charge which CE Northern command has refloated after 14 years without due care and concern.
(d) intimate what is expected from me which I can do when I have already been retired.
e) pl intimate why HQ E-in-c branch who is head of department has not nullified the illegal act of refloating the same charge which was already investigated and decided on 06 Feb 09 under charge memo of 08 Feb 2008 as was brought out before the authorities of MOD and HQ E-inC branch under my representation dated 26 Feb 22 (copy enclosed).
Page 3 of 38The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03-02-2024 stating as under:
Parawise replies of your RTI application are as under-
(i) Para 1 In this connection please refer this office letter No CRO/4/12/VIP/491/E1 Coord dated 02 Dec 2022.
(ii) Para 2 to 4 Not pertaining to this office. Therefore, your RTI application dated 6 Jun 2023 is being transferred to E1B E-in-C's Branch under Section 6 (3) of RTI Act-2005 to provide the information.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/134105 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.06.2023 CPIO replied on : 17.07.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order: Nil Complaint dated : 10.08.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1 (a) Name the authority who was under legal obligation to revoke the charge memo dated 15 February 22 (copy enclosed) on receipt of material evidences vide my letter dated 26 February 22 (copy enclosed) showing non bonafideness and non-maintainability of charge memo since charge thereunder was already decided on 06 January 2009 with punishment of stoppage of increments and punishment was implemented and completed on 05 January 2012 (copies enclosed) dated
(b) on which premises the above said Illegal and non est charge memo dated 15 Feb 22 (copy enclosed) was not revoked by authority who was responsible to do despite knowing of facts from my representations dated 26 February 22(copy enclosed) that I have already been punished in matter on 06 January 2009 (copy enclosed )and punishment was implemented vide part 2 order no 13/2009 (copy enclosed) and punishment was completed by me on 05 January 2012 (copy of part -2 order no 22/2012 enclosed).
(c) can the specific evidence provided in shape of official documents under representation dated 26 February can be Ignored by authority under obligation to act in matter to avoid second punishment on same cause of Page 4 of 38 action against which he has already undergone punishment as depicted under para 1 above by providing specific evidences
(d) can any officer at commanding position under obligation to decide a matter is allowed by law to willfully ignore the material facts and evidences provided under my representation dated 26 Feb 2022 (copy enclosed) as described under para 1(b) above.
(e) What reasons have been recorded against my representation dated 26 February for keeping the said charge memo dated 15 February 22 intact and not revoking the same even after knowing that ibid charge memo was illegal and non est as stated above under para la to b above.
(f) provide para wise replies against my representation dated 26 February 22 (copy enclosed) of Engineer in chief who is Head of department and against my subsequent representations 10 oct 22,02 Feb 23,17 March 23 17 May 23,24 May 23 and 31 May 23 (copies enclosed) 2 (a) Intimate under which rule I can be charge sheeted twice on the same charge firstly on 08 February 2008 by CE Pathonkot zone (copy enclosed) against which I have already been awarded punishment on 06 January 2009 by CE Western command (copy enclosed) secondly on same charge on 15 February 2022 by CE Northern command (copy enclosed).
(b) Intimate which officers of MES and CRO (0) MES are responsible and accountable for misconducts in Issuing illegal charge sheet dated 15 Feb 22 against already decided matter, and who remain inaction and discourteous to revoke the above said illegal and non est charge memo despite my representation dated 26 February as stated under para 2(a)to (e) for Initiating a case of criminal misconduct in court of law against their illegal act of inflicting harassment, financial distress and criminal defamation.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
With regard to ibid RTI applications, the custodian of the information has submitted following:-
(i) As per RTI Act-2005, only information already existing on records can be provided and not the reply of questions as framed by the applicant in his present RTI applications.
(ii) Since the disciplinary proceedings is under progress against the applicant as per Hon'ble High Court Jammu and Kashmir directions, information as sought by you can't be provided under sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005.
(iii) The requisite reply of nearly all the questionnaires asked by the applicant has already been provided by HQ CE WC vide letter No.31000/1116/PZ/16/E1D(I) dt 15 Nov 2022, Letter No. 31000/1116/PZ/24/E1D(I) dt 04 Jan 2023(Copy encl as Appx 'A' and Appx Page 5 of 38 'B') and CRO (Officers), Military Engineering Services Letter No. CRO/4/12/VIP/491/E1 Coord dt 02 Dec 2022 (Copy encl as Appx 'C').
This dispose of your above applications as per RTI Act.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/134106 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.06.2023 CPIO replied on : 17.07.2023 First appeal filed on : N.A. First Appellate Authority's order : N.A. Complaint dated : 10.08.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1 Intimate reasons for non-revoking of charge memo no 42102/525/RK//02/EID(2) dated15 Feb2 (copy enclosed) issued on a charge against which I have already been punished by CE Western command on 06 January 09 (copy enclosed) under charge memo of 08 Feb 08 (copy enclosed) and I have already undergone punishment from 06 Jan 09 to 05 Jan12 (copy enclosed) as intimated vide my letter dated 26 Feb 22 (copy enclosed). 2 (a) intimate how keeping the said charge memo dated 15 Feb 22 alive for 16 months even after knowing the fact from my disclosure vide letter dated 26 Feb22 that charge memo is illegal and non est, is legally valid and beneficial to state since charge thereunder has already been decided and implemented by awarding minor penalty on 06 January 09.
(b) who is responsible and accountable for keeping the above said charge memo dated 15 Feb 22, alive despite knowing of reasons as pointed out under sr item 2(a) above and is allowing the CRO (o) MES to use the said illegal and non est charge memo as a tool to stop release of my gratuity of 20 lakhs from last 15 months
(c) Who is responsible and accountable in MES and In CRO (o) to act on knowing of material misconduct projected under representation dated 26 Feb 22 to rectify the same to safe guard the Interest of govt as well as to avoid harassment and unwarranted litigation and payment of damages to victim on account of harassment and financial losses occurred in facing Ibid misconduct and miscarriage of justice.
Page 6 of 38(d) How CRO (0) MES being HOO is justified to use the above said illegal and non est charge memo dated 15 Feb 22 as a tool to Stop release of my gratuity from last 15 months instead of getting the said charge memo cancelled or revoked from authorities as he was under legal obligation to do it after receipt of facts and evidences of non bonafidness non est of said charge memo from my representation dated 26 Feb 22 and subsequently vide my letter dated 02 February 23,17 March 23, 17 May 23 & 31 May 23 (copies enclosed). why CRO
(o) has not discharged his duties being HOO after receipt of ibid letters provide para-wise justification of CRO (o) against communications. ibid
(e) which authority is controlling CRO (o) officers MES and what instructions has been given by Engineer in chief to CRO on release of gratuity after knowing of misconduct In Issuing charge sheet dated 15 Feb 22 (copy enclosed) on a charge against which I was already punished on 06 Jan 09 as was brought out under representation dated 26 Feb 22 (copy enclosed). If not why so and why CRO has not taken instructions on issue from Engineer in chief who is head of department.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
With regard to ibid RTI applications, the custodian of the information has submitted following:-
(i) As per RTI Act-2005, only information already existing on records can be provided and not the reply of questions as framed by the applicant in his present RTI applications.
(ii) Since the disciplinary proceedings is under progress against the applicant as per Hon'ble High Court Jammu and Kashmir directions, information as sought by you can't be provided under sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005.
(iii) The requisite reply of nearly all the questionnaires asked by the applicant has already been provided by HQ CE WC vide letter No.31000/1116/PZ/16/E1D(I) dt 15 Nov 2022, Letter No. 31000/1116/PZ/24/E1D(I) dt 04 Jan 2023(Copy encl as Appx 'A' and Appx 'B') and CRO (Officers), Military Engineering Services Letter No. CRO/4/12/VIP/491/E1 Coord dt 02 Dec 2022 (Copy encl as Appx 'C').
This dispose of your above applications as per RTI Act.
CIC/MODEF/C/2023/635404 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.06.2023
Page 7 of 38
First appeal filed on : N.A.
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
Complaint dated : 21.07.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1(a) Kindly intimate me the action taken and final outcome reached against my letters dated 10 oct 22 , 22oct 23 , 06 April 23 14 May 23 and 27 May 23 (copies enclosed) directed against an offence for ulterior motives by illegally floating a major penalty charge sheet dated 15 Feb 22 (copy enclosed) against A CHARGE which was already decided on 06 February 2009 (copy enclosed) by CE Western command against charge sheet of 08 February 2008 (copy enclosed ) by awarding minor punishment which punishment was undergone by me from 06 Jan 09 to 05 Jan 12 ( part 2 order no 22/2012 enclosed).
(b) provide para wise replies on above said referred my communication.
2 (a) Under which rule I have been charge sheeted twice on same charges once on 08 Feb 2008 (copy enclosed) and secondly on 15 Feb 2022 (copy enclosed).
(b) can I be punished twice on same charge when I have already be punished on 06 January 2009 (copy enclosed) and I had undergone and completed the punishment against the charge from 06 January 2009 to 05 January 2012 as stated under srl item 1 above as well as in representations fwd to pmo) enclosed herewith) in violation of articles 20(2)B of constitution of India. If no what action has been taken against said Major General CE northern command and others involved in matter willfully and thereafter remain discourteous even after receipt of thresh hold intimation vide my letter dated 26 February 22 and so many thereafter. 3(a) once when I had already been punished against CHARGE on 06 January 2009 for stoppage of increments for 03 years (copy enclosed) punishment implemented by department and undergone by me up to 05 January 2012 as described under srl item 1 above, then how and for which motive CE Northern command issued me Major Penalty charge sheet on 15 Feb 22 again on same charge which was already decided under charge sheet of 08 Feb 2008.
(b) is it not a case of misuse of official position to give me mental agony and financial distress by creating hurdles in release of my gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs withheld from last 15 months.
Page 8 of 38(c) is it justified to withheld my superannuation gratuity of Rs 20 lakh from last 15 months by taking advantage of their own misconduct of issuing charge memo against charge which was already decided on 06 January 09 (copy enclosed) .
4(a) what action has been taken against defaulting officers of MES and CRO (o) for committing above said offence as stated above
(b) for remaining willful negligent and discourteous to rectify their own misconduct even after receipt of my lawful intimation vide my letter dated 26 Feb 22 and numerous others.
(c) for misusing own misconduct as a tool to stop release my of my superannuation gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs for 15 months as on date .
(d) action taken to release gratuity.
The PIO, MoD transferred the RTI application to the Department of Military Affairs on 21.06.2023 through online RTI portal.
CIC/MODEF/C/2023/637001 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 12.06.2023 CPIO replied on : 18.07.2023 First appeal filed on : 16.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 28.07.2023 Complaint dated : 29.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1 kindly intimate me the status of action taken on my representations dated 26 February 22, 22 March 23, 06 April 23 and 24 May23 (copies) enclosed) demonstrated for seeking cancellation of approval accorded under MOD/D(vig- mes and BRO ID no13012/31/2021-D vig- MES and BRO/44 dated 13 January 22 for initiation of major penalty proceedings on the ground as the ibid approval was obtained fraudulently and by misrepresentation of facts by officers of MES ie Jt DG (D and V) against a charge which was already decided under minor penalty proceedings on 06 January 2009 by awarding me minor penalty of stoppage of increment for 03 years which Page 9 of 38 I undergone from 06 January 2009 to 05 January 2012 as represented under ibid representation dated 26 Feb 22.
2 what action under service rules has been taken against officers of MES who are involved in obtaining above said illegal and wrong approvalfrom MOD/D(vig- mes and BRO ID по13012/31/2021-D vig-
MES and BRO/44 dated 13 January 22by committing fraud as stated under srl item 1 above and has further misused the same as a tool for issuing a illegal charge memo on 15 February 2022 for major punishment proceedings on a charge which was already settled/decided by awarding me minor penalty in year 2009 with motive to stop retaase of my pensionary benefits.
3 Under my representation dated 26 February 2022 all facts and illegality were brought to notice of authorities of MOD then under which rule the 4 illegal and wrong sanction bearing has been kept alive from last 15 months and being allowed to misuse by authorities below for stopping release of my pensionary benefits. 4 which action has been taken to release my pensionary benefits ie gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs along with interest of 12 percent for 15 months delay period as on date since delay is totally attributed to officers as they have not rectified their misconducts timely in matter despite receipt of my first complaint dated 26 February 2022 by authorities of MES and MOD.
5 How withholding of my gratuity is justifiable on the basis of above said approval which was obtained by fraud by officers of MES by projecting a case which was already settled in year 2009 as represented under my representations dated 26 Feb22, 22 March 2023, 06 April 23 and 24 May 23 and I had already completed punishment from 2009 to2012 Also court order to issue fresh show cause was redundant since punishment was already completed by me when court direction came on 10 July 2017 after settling aside the minor penalty on grounds of non- application of mind.
The CPIO, Department of Defence transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Dir (D & V), E-in-C's Branch, Kashmir House, New Delhi on 18.07.2023 under section 6(3) of RTI ACT-2005.
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 28.07.2023, held as under.
WHEREAS an application of appeal by Shri Raj Kapoor under RTI Act, 2005 have been received on 16.07.2023.
Page 10 of 38AND WHEREAS with respect to the information sought by the applicant, It is stated that the RTI application dated 12.06.2023 of the applicant has been transferred to CPIO, Dir (D&V), E-in-C's Branch, Kashmir House, New Delhi-110011 on 11.07.2023 vide MoD ID No. C- 31019/03/RTI/2022/D(Vig-MES & BRO)/749, under section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE after providing above information the appeal is hereby treated as disposed off.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/632081 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.06.2023 CPIO replied on : 30.06.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order : Nil Complaint dated : 02.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1 what action has been taken by HQ E-in-c branch against my representations submitted vide emails dated 28 may 23 and 30 April 23 copies of which are enclosed herewith If no action is taken in matter reasons may kindly be intimated being head of Department and controlling officers of HQ CWE 133 wks engrs and GE969 since they have failed to perform their lawful duties in giving their decision despite holding of board of officers under their convening order no C-1-20-
Complaint-1-E 1C dated 16 February 223 and despite receipt of my written statement dated 04 March 23, in a bid to resolve the matter as was directed vide HQ E-in-c branch vide their letter no order no B/10601/PEN/2345/EIB (p&A) dated 25 March 2022 for ascertaining authenticity of Leave Pto no 30 of 28 July 2014 2 what action has been taken against Col SS Vidyarthi of HQ 133 works Engineer and Major Neeraj Kumar Singh of GE 969 against their inaction to deliver their decision on cancellation of the Leave pto no 30 of 28 July 2014 despite holding board of officers vide convening order no C - 1/20/Complaint/01/E 1C dated 16 February 2023 and receipt of my statement on 04 March 2023 merely because of reasons that decision was going in my favour because of my arguments contained in my Page 11 of 38 statemen supported with concrete documentary evidences in shape of ACR of relevant years submitted in matter before Col SS Vidyarthi which were expressly not showing leave period which was catered in pto no 30. 3 HQ E-in-c branch letter nо B/10601/PEN/2345/EIB (p&A)dated 25 March 2022 has not been acted upon by officers of HQ 133 but breached to harm the retired officer by sitting over that for more than 15 months please intimate what action has been taken by HQ E-in-c branch. 4 under which rule commander HQ 133 namely COI vidayarthi has been enjoying liberty to sit over a case of pensioner for 15 months as described above under item 1 to 3 above despite when there was written direction from HQ E-in-c branch letter по В/10601/PEN/2345/ΕΙΒ (p&A)dated 25 March 2022 to resolve the issue forthwith. 5 kindly confirm that matter has been Seized by HQ E-in-c branch for immediate decision as represented vide by my email dated 28 May 2023 or otherwise intimate who will deliver decision by which date.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 30.06.2023 stating as under:
2 It is intimated that, your RTI application is in the form of questionnaires which is not covered under RTI Act 2005.
3. It is also intimated that Para 1 to 5 of RTI application not pertaining to this office Please approach appropriate auth.
4. This disposes off your RTI application accordingly.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/632126 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.06.2023 CPIO replied on : 30.06.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order : Nil Complaint dated : 03.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1 kindly intimate me reasons for non release of my gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs from last 15 months after my retirement on 31 March 22 with false verdict that disciplinary action is pending against me despite providing of clear Page 12 of 38 proof by me that no disciplinary action is pending against me since charge memo issued on 15 February 2022 (copy enclosed) is non est as the same is containing same charge which was earlier in charge memo dated 08 February 2008 (copy enclosed) against which I had already been punished on 06 January 2009 (copy enclosed) and I had undergone the punishment from 06 January 2009 to 05 January 2012(copy enclosed) as represented in my representation dated 26 February 22, 10 oct 22, 02 February 23,17 March 23, 17 May 23, 24 May 23 and 31 May23. (copies enclosed). 2 How court direction dated 10 July 2017 to issue fresh show cause was enforceable since came later after 05 years when punishment was already implemented by department on 06 January 2009 and undergone by me from January 2009 to January 2012.
3 How reply of MES department /CE Western command that charge memo dated 15 February 2022 has been issued as per J&k High court order dated 10 july 2017 holds good since it stands falsified from the fact that court direction to issue fresh show cause came after 05 years later when punishment was already implemented and undergone by me from 06 January 2009 to 05 January 12 as intimated to all authorities vide my representation dated 26 February 22 and dated 10 oct 22,02 Feb 23,17 March 23,17 May 23,24 May 23 and 31 May 23 (copies enclosed). 4 Honourable court has remitted the case of minor penalty proceedings to respondents after setting aside the minor penalty order dated 06 January 09, for issuing fresh show cause notice in matter. How denovo inquiry under rule 14 for Major punishment has been initiated by issuing a illegal charge memo dated 15 February 22 against a case of minor penalty proceedings remitted by mistake by J&k high court on 10 July 17 for issuance of fresh show cause when punishment was already implemented by department and undergone by me.
5 what was decision of appointing authority i.e. Engineer -in- chief on my representation dated 26 February 22 dated 10 oct 22 and 24 May 23 pl forward copy of replies with reasons of not replying 6 what action has been taken by CRO (o) on my letters sent under emails dated 02 February 23,17 March 23, 17 May23 & 31 May 23. 7 Name the authority who is overall responsible to release my superannuation gratuity and who is responsible for causing delay of 15 months as on date in releasing gratuity despite my timely representation dated 26 February 22 on facts of non est of ibid charge memo dated 15 February 22 since charge was already decided on 06 January 09 and I had undergone minor punishment wef 06 January 09 to 05 January 2012.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 30.06.2023 stating as under:
Page 13 of 381. It is intimated that, your RTI application is in the form of questionnaires which is not covered under RTI Act 2005, however para wise replies of RTI application are as under:-
(i) Para 1 & 6 : In this connection please refer this office letter No CRO/4/12/VIP/491/E1 Coord dated 02 Dec 2022.
(ii) Para 2 to 5: Not pertaining to this office. Please approach appropriate &7 auth.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/634059 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 10.07.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order : Nil Complaint dated : 12.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2023 seeking the following information:
1 kindly refer below mentioned letters (copies enclosed), forwarded to CRO (0) MES by CDA pension Allahabad for re-examination of case against release of gratuity and other pensionary benefits and re- loading revised data sheet in terms of representations before authorities on PG portal by pensioner, and intimate which action was taken and what is status of re-
examination and loading of revised data sheet after examination of case as stressed in the representation petitions.
(a)- G1/civil/SPARSH/MES/2022 dated 13 oct 22
(b)-G1/civil/SPARSH/MES/2022 dated 12 Nov 22
(c)-G1/civil/SPARSH/MES/2023 dated 31 Jan23 2 pl refer my representations dated 23 Nov 22, 12 Dec 22, 16 Dec 22, and 30 June 23 addressed to CRO (copies enclosed). Pl intimate the status of action taken and outcome.pl provide para wise replies on issues raised in ibid petitions.
3 (a) CRO (o) mes, reply vide his letter no cro/4/VIP/491/E1 Coord dated 02 December 22 copy enclosed) addressed to mr with copy to HQ E- in-c branch, out rightly describing pension and gratuity rules related to non release of gratuity and commuted pension in r/o of employees against whom disciplinary action is pending. in this context please intimate how his Page 14 of 38 ibid reply dated 02 Dec 22, against my case of non release of gratuity by him is applicable since I have no pending disciplinary case as represented vide my representation dated 26 Feb 22 with evidences (copy enclosed).
(b) pl intimate on what basis CRo (o) mes has assumed me as involved in disciplinary action without taking decision on my representation dated 26 February 22 submitted against illegal and non est charge memo of 15 February 22 floated against a charge for which I have already met punishment on 06 Jan 09 as represented in ibid representation. (C) provide me copy of order passed against my representation dated 26 Feb 22 or reasons for arbitrarily assuming me involved in disciplinary action.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 10.07.2023 stating as under:
1. It is intimated that, your RTI application is in the form of questionnaires which is not covered under RTI Act 2005. As per Section 2 (j) "Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to :-
(i) Inspection of work, documents, records.
(ii) Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records.
(III) Taking certified samples of materials.
(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
CIC/MESER/C/2023/634060 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 10.07.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order : Nil Complaint dated : 12.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 15 of 381 kindly refer below mentioned letters (copies enclosed), forwarded to CRO (0) MES by CDA pension Allahabad for re examination of case against release of gratuity and other pensionary benefits and re- loading revised data sheet in terms of representations before authorities on PG portal by pensioner, and intimate which action was taken and what is status of re-
examination and loading of revised data sheet after examination of case as stressed in the representation petitions.
(a)- G1/civil/SPARSH/MES/2022 dated 13 oct 22
(b)-G1/civil/SPARSH/MES/2022 dated 12 Nov 22
(c)-G1/civil/SPARSH/MES/2023 dated 31 Jan23 2 pl refer my representations dated 23 Nov 22, 12 Dec 22, 16 Dec 22, and 30 June 23 addressed to CRO (copies enclosed). Pl intimate the status of action taken and outcome.pl provide para wise replies on issues raised in ibid petitions 3 (a) CRO (o) mes, reply vide his letter no cro/4/VIP/491/E1 Coord dated 02 December 22 copy enclosed)addressed to mr with copy to HQ E- in-c branch, out rightly describing pension and gratuity rules related to non release of gratuity and commuted pension in r/o of employees against whom disciplinary action is pending in this context please intimate how his ibid reply dated 02 Dec 22, against my case of non release of gratuity by him is applicable since I have no pending disciplinary case as represented vide my representation dated 26 Feb 22 with evidences (copy enclosed).
(b) pl intimate on what basis CRo (o) mes has assumed me as involved in disciplinary action without taking decision on my representation dated 26 February 22 submitted against illegal and non est charge memo of 15 February 22 floated against a charge for which I have already met punishment on 06 Jan 09 as represented in ibid representation. (C) provide me copy of order passed against my representation dated 26 Feb 22 or reasons for arbitrarily assuming me involved in disciplinary action.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 10.07.2023 stating as under:
1. It is intimated that, your RTI application is in the form of questionnaires which is not covered under RTI Act 2005. As per Section 2 (j) "Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to :-
(i) Inspection of work, documents, records.Page 16 of 38
(ii) Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records.
(III) Taking certified samples of materials.
(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
CIC/MESER/C/2023/636700 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 21.07.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order : Nil Complaint dated : 25.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2023 seeking the following information:
1 I have filed representation cum complaint dated 10 oct 22 (copy enclosed) Before Defence minister and Defence secretary, kindly intimate status of progress/ orders passed in matter if not then where is hold up. 2 I have filed complaint cum representation dated 06 April 23 and dated 14 May23 (copies enclosed) Before honorable Defence minister kindly intimate status of progress achieved /and orders passed in matter or where it is hold up in process and who are responsible.
3 1 have filed complaint before CVO (MES) in MOD dated 22 March 23.
kindly intimate status of progress achieved /and orders passed in matter or where it is hold up in process and who are responsible. 4 I have filed a complaint before Defence secretary dated 26 February 22 (copy enclosed) against a letter of approval issued by under secretary of MOD vigilance (MES and Bro) who has wrongly issued approval against me for initiation of Major penalty proceedings vide no MOD/D(vigilance MES& BRO/44 dated 13 Jan (22 copy enclosed) against a CHARGE which was already decided by CE Western command on 06 February 2009 (copy enclosed) by awarding minor punishment in pursuant to charge memo of 08 February 2008 (copy enclosed). In this connection please intimate
(i) what is status of action taken against my ibid complaint addressed to defence secretary as nothing has been heard despite lapse of 18 months after its filing.
Page 17 of 38(ii) Provide copy of speaking orders passed against ibid complaint if not passed please intimate reasons for inaction to resolve undue harassment and miscarriage of justice.
(iii) status of action taken by secretary MOD/ defence minister against officers who have committed ibid fraud of obtaining illegal approval for major punishment against already settled case of minor penalty and misused the said approval as a tool to issue me major penalty charge memo dated 15 February 22 (copy enclosed) to stop release of my gratuity as represented before MOD through ibid representations.
The CPIO, Department of Defence transferred the RTI application to the MES on 21.07.2023 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/636701 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 27.07.2023 First appeal filed on : Nil First Appellate Authority's order : Nil Complaint dated : 25.07.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2023 seeking the following information:
1 Kindly provide me the following information:-
(A) It is requested to refer president of India secretariat email dated 21 june 23 addressed to shri Girdhar Aramane Defence Secretary (copy enclosed) whereunder my petition dated 16 June 23 seeking suspension of all defaulting officer of MES responsible for illegally withholding my superannuation gratuity of 20 lakhs from last 16 months, with request to release the said gratuity amount with 12 percent compound interest for 16 months has been referred for kind attention and requested for necessary action being self explanatory, with intimation to me In this connection please intimate me the following information:-
(i) The status of release of my gratuity amount of Rs 20 lakhs with 12percent compound interest for delay period of 16 months as on date.
(ii) which action has been taken against defaulting officers of MES who are/were responsible for delay in releasing gratuity despite receipt of my Page 18 of 38 representations dated 26 February 22 and thereafter dated as enclosed in pdf.
(B) kindly refer foot note 1 of president of India secretariat email dated 21 June 23 addressed to shri Girdhar Aramane Defence Secretary (copy enclosed) with copy to me whereunder I have been requested to laise with worthy Defence Secretary for further progress of case, in this case please provide me the following information.
(i) kindly intimate me the basic procedural formalities required to laise with Defence secretary in MOD.
(ii) kindly intimate me the date on which I can meet with Defence secretary as per note no 1 of president secretariat email dated 21 June 23.
The CPIO, Department of Defence transferred the RTI application to the MES on 21.07.2023 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/639403 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.06.2023 CPIO replied on : N.A. First appeal filed on : N.A. First Appellate Authority's order : N.A. Complaint dated : 10.08.2023 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2023 seeking the following information:
1(a) Kindly intimate me the action taken and final outcome reached against my letters dated 09 oct 22 , 12oct 22, 19 Nov 22 and 09 January 23 (copies enclosed) directed against CE Northern command for his offence of floating a major penalty charge sheet dated 15 Feb 22 (copy enclosed) against A CHARGE which was already decided on 06 February 2009 (copy enclosed) by CE Western command against charge sheet of 08 February 2008 (copy enclosed ) by awarding minor punishment which punishment was undergone by me from 06 Jan 09 to 05 Jan 12 ( part 2 order no 22/2012 enclosed).
(b) provide para wise replies on above said referred my communication.Page 19 of 38
2(a) Under which rule I have been charge sheeted twice on same charges once on 08 Feb 2008 (copy enclosed) and secondly on 15 Feb 2022 (copy enclosed).
(b) can I be punished twice on same charge when I have already be punished on 06 January 2009 (copy enclosed) and I had undergone and completed the punishment against the charge from 06 January 2009 to 05 January 2012 as stated under srl item 1 above as well as in representaions fwd to pmo) enclosed herewith) in violation of articles 20(2)B of constitution of India.If no what action has been taken against said Major General CE northern command and others involved in matter willfully and thereafter remain discourteous even after receipt of thresh hold intimation vide my letter dated 26 February 22 and so many thereafter.
3(a) once when I had already been punished against CHARGE on 06 January 2009 for stoppage of increments for 03 years (copy enclosed ) punishment implemented by department and undergone by me upto 05 January 2012 as described under srl item 1 above, then how and for which motive CE Northern command issued me Major Penalty charge sheet on 15 Feb 22 again on same charge which was already decided under charge sheet of 08 Feb 2008.
(b) is it not a case of misuse of official position to give me mental agony and financial distress by creating hurdles in release of my gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs withheld from last 15 months .
(c) is it justified to withheld my superannuation gratuity of Rs 20 lakh from last 15 months by taking advantage of their own misconduct of issuing charge memo against charge which was already decided on 06 January 09 (copy enclosed).
4(a) what action action has been taken against defaulting officers of MES and CRO (o) for committing above said offence as stated above
(b) for remaining willful negligent and discourteous to rectify their own misconduct even after receipt of my lawful intimation vide my letter dated 26 Feb 22 and numerous others.
(c) for misusing own misconduct as a tool to stop release my of my superannuation gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs for 15 months as on date.
(d) action taken to release gratuity.
The CPIO's reply is not on record.
Being dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 20 of 38The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.
Respondents: Following appeared in person. -
• Mr. R. R. Meena, CRO/CPIO along with Mr. R. P. Barik, OS, CRO Office, Delhi Cantt.
• Mr. Amit Ranjan, Director (D & V)/CPIO, E-in-C's, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi.
• Mr. Mangal Soren, US & CPIO, Ministry of Defence, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi.
A written submission dated 11.10.2024 in six cases has been filed by Mr. R. R. Meena, CRO/CPIO is taken on record, contents of the same (case-wise) are reproduced below for ready reference-
CIC/MESER/C/2023/634058:
"2. The following is intimated please :-
(a) CRO (O) is a Central Record Officer (Officers) of Military Engineer Services under MoD who is the custodian of service book of Group 'A' & 'B' officer (both retired & in service). The main role of CRO are processing of pension papers, pay fixations, leave encashment etc for which the documents are received from various MES formations located all over India.
(b) The individual has promoted to Group 'B' officer on 02 Dec 2015 and retired on 31 Mar 2022. As per the administrative instruction issued by E-in-C, Service Book of the officer duly completed in all aspects i.e. Qualifying Service duly audited, Pay Fixations, leave account, Initial property statement of subordinate period etc should be submitted to CRO for centralization within 06 months of becoming an officer but in this case, the Service Book has been received in this office in Feb 2022 vide HQ ADG (N) Jammu letter No PF/507207/RK/AE (QS&C)/49/ E1 (Pens) dated 25 Jan 2022, after lapse of 08 years, that too incomplete. The deficiencies in the service book were intimated vide CRO letter No CRO/16/3/SC/3798 dated 23 Mar 2022. During this period the officer have also not paid any attention in getting their service book centralized with CRO.
(c) As per Rule 60 of CCS Pension Rule 2021, pension papers can be forwarded to audit only once the service book of the govt servant is duly completed up-to-date and only other documents relied upon for the verification of service.
(d) Since the charge sheet was issued prior to retirement, provisional full pension was processed. Being disciplinary case, gratuity and commutation was not allowed and processed accordingly to Rule 8 (4) (c) of CCS Pension Rules 2021 and Rule 12 Page 21 of 38
(v) of CCS (Commutation Pension) Rule 1981 respectively. The commutation was not allowed, full pension is being released regularly.
The information asked & provided to the applicant are as under for ready reference:-
Information asked by Sh. Raj Kapoor Information provided by this office
(a) Pl find enclosed herewith copies of applicant are as under for ready my letters addressed to CRO (O) MES Information provided by this office (31 May 23 and 19 June 22) copy of In this connection, please refer this which is endorsed to MOD and HQ E-in- office letter No CRO/4/12/VIP/491/ c branch .pl intimate action taken by E1 Coord dated 02 Dec 2022 (Copy MOD and HQ E-in-c on ibid att) representations to expedite release of Content of this Office letter No gratuity withheld illegally by CRO(0) CRO/4/12/VIP/491/E1 Coord dated MES from last 15 months by taking plea 02 Dec 2022 is as under:
of illegal and non est charge memo (a) As per Rule 12 (v) of CCS dated 15 Feb 22( projected by CE (Commutation Pension) Rule 1981, northern command in absence of No commutation is admissible till the records as Der his reply on pg portals), finalization of the departmental or against a charge against which I had judicial proceedings referred to in already been punished on 06 January Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and issue 2009 (copy enclosed) and I had of final orders thereon. undergone the punishment from 16 Jan (b) As per Rule 8 (4) (c) of CCS 09 to 05 Jan 12 (copy enclosed) as Pension Rules 2021. No gratuity shall represented in my representation dated be paid to the Government servant 26 Feb 22 Copy enclosed), 02 Feb 23, 17 un- till the conclusion of the March 23, 17 May 23, 24 May 23 and departmental or judicial proceedings 31 May 23 and 19 June 23. and issue of final order thereon
(b) Which action has been taken against Not pertaining to this office.
CRO (0) MES for rendering a vague Therefore, your RTI application dated inappropriate reply under his letter no 6 Jun 2023 is being transferred to CRO/4/12/VIP/491/Coord on 02 Dec 22 E1B E-in-C's Branch under Section 6 that disciplinary action is pending on (3) of RTI Act- 2005 to provide the account of charge memo issued by CE information. Northern command on 15 Feb 22, without first seeking decision on my Page 22 of 38 representation dated 26 February 22 from my appointing authority or MOD despite my repeated representations from last 16 month.
Not pertaining to this office.
(d) (1) Kindly intimate why CRO (o) of Therefore, your RTI application dated MES who has been declared as HOO 6 Jun 2023 is being transferred to under financial rules has not got the E1B E- in-C's Branch under Section 6 misconduct of CE northern command (3) of RTI Act-2005 to provide the (or any body else) rectified or nullified information. from HQ E-in-c branch or from MOD from last 16 months despite receipt of my representation dated 26 Feb 22 and so many others as referred under srl item 1 and 2 above.
(ii) How long CRO (a) will sit over his in appropriate plea of pending memo dt 15 Feb 22 without getting misconduct rectified when he is responsible to get it nullified/rectified after receipt my letter dt 26 Feb 22 (copy enclosed) pl intimate if he has not get the misconduct rectified/nullified then who has to do it.
(iii) Intimate what is my fault in matter and why suffer in getting my superannuation gratuity when I have already undergone the punishment on the charge which CE Northern command has reficated after 14 years without due care and concern
(iv) Intimate what is expected from me which I can do when I have already been retired.
(V) Pl intimate why HQ E-in-c branch who is head of department has not nullified the illegal act of refloating the same charge which was already Page 23 of 38 investigated and decided on 06 Feb 09 under charge memo of 08 Feb 2008 as was brought out before the authorities of MOD and HQ E-in-C branch under my representation dated 26 Feb 22 (copy enclosed) CIC/MESER/C/2023/632081:
The information asked & provided to the applicant are as under for ready reference:-
Information asked by Sh. Raj Kapoor Information provided by this office
(a) What action has been taken by HQ 1. It is intimated that, your RTI E-in-c branch against my application is in the form of representations submitted vide emails questionnaires which is not covered dated 28 may 23 and 30 April 23 under RTI Act 2005.
copies of which are enclosed herewith 2. It is also intimated that Para 1 to 5 If no action is taken in matter reasons of RTI application not pertaining to may kindly be Intimated being head of Chis office. appropriate auth. Please Department and controlling officers of approach HQ CWE 133 wks engrs and GE 969 since they have failed to perform their awful duties in giving their decision despite holding of board of officers under their convening order no C-1 -
20-Complaint 1 E 1 C dated 16 February 223 and despite receipt of my written statement dated 04 March 23, in a bid to resolve the matter as was directed vide HQ E-in- branch vide their letter no order no 3/10601/PEN/2345/EIB (P&A) dated 25 March 2022 for ascertaining authenticity of Leave PTO No 30 of 28 July 2014 Page 24 of 38
(b) What action has been taken 1. It is intimated that, your RTI against Col SS Vidyarthi of HQ 133 application is in the form of works Engineer and Major Neeraj questionnaires which is not covered Kumar Singh of GE 969 against their under RTI Act 2005. inaction to deliver their decision on 2. It is also intimated that Para 1 to 5 cancellation of the Leave pto no 30 of of RTI application not pertaining to 28 July 2014 despite holding board of this office. Please approach officers vide convening order no appropriate auth. 1/20/Complaint/01/E 1C dated 16 February 2023 and receipt of my statement on 04 March 2023 merely because of reasons that decision was going in my favour because of my arguments contained in my statement supported with concrete documentary evidences in shape of ACR of relevant years submitted in matter before Col SS Vidyarthi which were expressly not showing leave period which was catered in pto no 30.
(c) HQ E-in-c branch letter no B/10601/PEN/2345/EIB (p&A)dated 25 March 2022 has not been acted upon by officers of HQ 133 but breached to harm the retired officer by sitting over that for more than 15 months please intimate what action has been taken by HQ E-in-c branch.
(d) under which rule commander HQ 133 namely COI vidayarthi has been enjoying liberty to sit over a case of pensioner for 15 months as described above under item 1 to 3 above despite when there was written direction from HQ E-in-c branch letter no B/10601/PEN/2345/EIB (p&A) dated 25 March 2022 to resolve the issue Page 25 of 38 forthwith.
(e) Kindly confirm that matter has been Seized by HQ E-in-c branch for immediate decision as represented vide by my email dated 28 May 2023 or otherwise intimate who will deliver decision by which date.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/632126:
The information asked & provided to the applicant are as under for ready reference:-
Information asked by Sh. Raj Kapoor Information provided by this office
(a) Kindly intimate me reasons for non In this connection, please refer this release of my gratuity of Rs 20 lakhs office letter No CRO/4/12//IP/491/E1 from last 15 months after my Coord dated 02 Dec 2022 (Copy att) retirement on 31 March 22 with false Content of this letter No verdict that disciplinary action is CRO/4/12/VIP/491/E1 Coord dated pending against me despite providing of 02 clear proof by me that no disciplinary Dec 2022 is as under :-
action is pending against me since (a) As per Rule 12 (v) of CCS charge memo issued on 15 February (Commutation Pension) Rule 1981, 2022 (copy enclosed) is non est as the No commutation is admissible till the same is containing same charge which finalization of the departmental or was earlier in charge memo dated 08 judicial proceedings referred to in February 2008 (copy enclosed) against Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and issue which I had already been punished on of final orders thereon. 06 January 2009 (copy enclosed) and I (b) As per Rule 8 (4) (c) of CCS had undergone the punishment from 06 Pension Rules 2021, No gratuity shall January 2009 to 05 January 2012(copy be paid to the Government servant enclosed) as represented in my un- till the conclusion of the representation dated 26 February 22, departmental or judicial proceedings 10 Oct 22 2 February 23,17 March 23, and issue of final order thereon. 17 May 23, 24 May 23 and 31 May
3.(copies enclosed)..Page 26 of 38
(b) How court direction dated 10 July 2017 to issue fresh show cause was Not pertaining to this office. Please enforceable since came later after 05 approach appropriate auth. years when punishment was already implemented by department on 06 January 2009 and undergone by me from January 2000 to January 2012
(c) How reply of MES department /CE Not pertaining to this office. Please Western command that charge memo approach appropriate auth. dated 15 February 2022 has been issued as per J&k High court order dated 10 July 2017 holds good since it stands falsified from the fact that court direction to issue fresh show cause came after 06 years later when punishment was already implemented and undergone by me from 06 January 2009 to 05 January 12 as intimated to all authorities vide my representation dated 26 February 22 and dated 10 Oct 22,02 Feb 23,17 March 23,17 May 23,24 May 23 and 31 May 23 (copies enclosed)
(d) Honorable court has remitted the case of minor penalty proceedings to respondents after setting aside the minor penalty order dated 06 January 09, for issuing fresh show cause notice in matter How denovo inquiry under rule 14 for Major punishment has been initiated by issuing a illegal charge Page 27 of 38 memo dated 15 February 22 against a case of minor penalty proceedings remitted by mistake by J&k high court on 10 July 17 for issuance of fresh show Not pertaining to this office. Please cause when punishment was already approach appropriate auth. implemented by department and undergone by me
(e) What was decision of appointing authority i.e. Engineer in chief on my representation dated 26 February 22 dated 10 Oct 22 and 24 May 23 pl forward copy of replies with reasons of not replying
(f) What action has been taken by CRO
(o) on my letters sent under emails dated 02 February 23,17 March 23, 17 May 23 & 31 May 23 Not pertaining to this office. Please approach appropriate auth.
Reply quoted at Para 2 (above please)
(g)Name the authority who is overall Not pertaining to this office. Please responsible to release my approach appropriate auth. superannuation gratuity and who is responsible for causing delay of 15 months as on date in releasing gratuity despite my timely representation dated 26 February 22 on facts of non est of Ibid charge memo dated 15 February 22 since charge was already decided on 06 January 09 and I had undergone minor punishment wef 06 January 09 to 05 January 2012 CIC/MESER/C/2023/632126:
Page 28 of 3878891/RTI/RK/55A/EID dated 17 July replying as CPIO for his portion of rti application no MESER/R/E/01377 dated 08 june 23 and against RTI applications bearing nos MESER/R/E/23/01462 dated 18 june 23 and MESER/R/E/23/01463 dated 18 june 23. He has breached the RTI laws as he was under obligation to reply separately against each rti request Hence complaint submitted on online on 28 july 2023 Diared as no 636813 dated 28 july 23 be admitted as requested case file no accordingly Yours sincerely Since it is on line be given case file no accordingly.
1- It is requested to register my Complaint against CPIO sh Amit Ranjan Dir (D&V) of HQ E-in-c branch of public authority MES, Under section 18
(b)(e)&(f) of RTI Act and impose penalty of Rs 25000 .00 and disciplinary action together under section 20(2) of RTI Act, to maintain glory of RTI act and its sanctity since the said CPIO has made mockery of Act and its provisions and ruthlessly disposed of my 03 separately RTI applications filed on different dates by writing a common reply of routine nature for all 03 different RTI together giving no sense at all and has deprived me of my right to have information as sought for. He has done this omission of law deliberately for oblique motives to hide his delay and for saving himself from making application of mind on each and every issue raised in all 03 different RTI filed on different issues on different dates. He has shown callous attitude and lackadaisical approach in dealing with rti applications and furnishing general nature reply of meaning less nature by attaching unwarranted documents of lower units with motive to hide his delay and to justify himself for sending the reply of rti by dak instead of online mode. Thus the said CPIO is guilty of malafidely providing destroyed incorrect, and misleading information under a common reply of General nature for all 03 applications and send under dak by back date signing the letter which received on 28 july (letter no78891/RTI/RK/55A/EID) much more after prescribed 30 days when all 03 RTI was on filed online he was supposed to send reply online within 30 days of rti filing date separately in r/o each RTI application bearing different nos-
(i)- MESER/R/E/23/01377 dated 08 june 23.
(ii) - MESER/R/E/23/01462 dated 18 june 23.
(iii)- MESER/R/E/23/01463 dated 18 june 23.
In view of above facts the CPIO be punished for all punishment Page 29 of 38 prescribed under section 20 of RTI for imposing penalty of RS 25000.00 and for ordering disciplinary action as his act of not providing information was with malafide considerations as the information sought were related to his portfolio of work his deficiencies and deficiencies of his other colleague officers their inactions. omissions could have revealed on record if he had provided the informations sought far. It is therefore requested to take all actions as he has shown callous attitude, and lackadaisical approach in performing govt duties assigned as CPIO and disregarded the RTI act and harassed the information seekers by not providing information related to reasons of non release of his pensionary benefits from last 18 months on frivolous grounds.
2- It is requested to provide information under section 19 of RTI Act for all the above RTI mentioned at para 1above.
CIC/MESER/C/2023/634059 and CIC/MESER/C/2023/634060 Information provided by this office
1. It is intimated that, your RTI application is in the form of questionnaires which is not covered under RTI Act 2005. As per Section 2 (j) "Right to information"
means the right to information accessible under this act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to :-
(i) Inspection of work, documents, records.
(ii) Taking notes, extracts certified copies of documents records. JO or
(iii) Taking certified samples of materials.
(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
Complainant narrated the genesis of instant cases being the alleged illegal act of Under Secretary (Vig.- MES and BRO) for giving advice and approval regarding initiation of major penalty against complainant on a charge for which he has already been awarded/punished by minor penalty with the stoppage of increments for three years after proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS Rules, 1965, which was completed on 06.01.2009. The said punishment was challenged by him before Hon'ble J & K High Court vide case No. SWP No. 309/2015, wherein the court vide order dated 10.07.2017 set aside the minor penalty and remitted the case to the department for fresh investigation by issuing fresh show cause notice. He contended that since the complainant has already Page 30 of 38 completed the minor penalty for the alleged charge, therefore, issuance of fresh chargesheet on the same issue amounts to double jeopardy more so at the belated stage. In this regard, he filed multiple representations and sought action taken report of the same through these RTI applications, however, he expressed his astonishment to the fact that incomplete and misleading reply has been provided by the CPIOs. He further alleged that Headquarter Chief Engineer Western Command exceeded their jurisdiction by issuing penalty orders which ought to be issued by the E-in-C branch.
Mr. R. R. Meena, CRO/CPIO while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his averred written submission stated that point-wise reply along with relevant information as is held in their office has already been furnished to the complainant. No additional information is available at their end.
Mr. Amit Ranjan, Director (D & V)/CPIO, E-in-C's branch stated that his office has received multiple complaints from the complaints on CPGRAM portal which was replied to the Complainant vide letters dated 15.11.2022, 02.12.2022 and 04.01.2023 by informing him as under -
Contents of letter dated 15.11.2022:
(i) Minor penalty "Withholding of increments for a period of three years without cummulative effect" under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was awarded to the complainant by HQ CE Western Comd on 06 Jan 2009 for the discp case for tampering of tender documents in CA No JM-27/2001-02:
Provn of special repairs to Bldg No T-5/11, 5/1, 5/12, 5/13 and 5/14 of Inf Bn at Jammu. The complainant had challenged the order by filing SWP No. 309/2015 at Hon'ble High Court J&K, Jammu and Hon'ble High Court J&K, Jammu to quash the penalty vide order dt 10 Jul 2017, which directed the department to issue fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and to afford an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, HQ CE Western Comd cancelled the penalty order by issuing speaking order No 31000/1116/PZ/ 66/E1D(I) dt 29 Oct 2020.
(ii) Further, discipline case was referred to E-in-C's Br for seeking advice of CVO for charging the complainant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 Page 31 of 38 on 13 Oct 2021. The case has been examined by D(Vigilance-MES & BRO). MoD and direction issued vide their letter No 13011/31/2021-D(Vig-MES & BRO)/44 dt 13 Jan 2022 to initiate major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Accordingly authenticated Charge Memo was fwd to HQ CE Northern Comd vide HQ CE Western Comd letter No 31000/1116/PZ/87/E1D (I) dt 24 Jan 2022 to serve upon to the complainant. Further the Charge Memo was served upon to the complainant by HQ CE Northern Comd vide letter No 42102/525/RK/CE(AF)/02/E1D dt15 Feb 2022.
(iii) Therefore, the averments of twice punishment on same charges made by the complainant are not agreed to.
(iv) In this connection the following policies are reproduced below :-
(i) Para 3 of E-in-C's Branch Policy letter No. 78891/Policy/01/E1D dt 10 May 2019 "Therefore, the CE Comd, who is competent Disciplinary Authority in respect of Group 'B' employee for imposing minor penalties under clauses (i) to
(iv) of Rule 11, is also competent to issue charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. However, after conclusion of proceedings final orders for imposition of major penalty under clauses (v) to (ix) or Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 should be issued by the E-in-C".
(ii) Sub Rule 3 (1) (a) of Rule 12, Clarification about Rules 12 & 14 stated that "It is necessary that in cases where the disciplinary authority is the President, the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings should be approved by the Minister". In this case, Charge Memo has been issued as per dims received from the Ministry of Defence.
(iii) In view of the policies reproduced above, the averments 'Charge memo Issued without approval of President' made by the complainant is not agreed to.
Reply to withholding of Gratuity and commuted pension be obtained from HQ ADG North and CRO (O) please."
Contents of letter dated 02.12.2022:
"1. Ref HQ Chief Engineer Western Command letter No 31000/1116/PZ/E1D (1) da 15 Nov 2022 & E-in-C's Branch letter No B/23441/CPG/Gen/CRO/CP GRAMS Page 32 of 38 dated 14 Nov 2022 under which your CPGRAM Registration No MODEF/E/2022/04991 dated 23 Sep 2022 has been recd."
2. With respect of above, the following are brought out :-
(a) As per Rule 12 (v) of CCS (Commutation Pension) Rule 1981, No commutation is admissible till the finalization of the departmental or judicial proceedings referred to in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and issue of final orders thereon.
(b) As per Rule 8 (4) (c) of CCS Pension Rules 2021, No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant un-till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon.
3. This is for your info & disposes of your representation."
Contents of letter dated 04.01.2023:
"2. In this connection following comments are offered please:-
(a) Minor penalty "Withholding of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect" under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was awarded by HQ CE Western Comd on 06 Jan 2009 for the discp case for tampering of tender documents in CA No JM-27/2001-02: Provn of special repairs to Bldg No -
T-5/11, 5/1, 5/12, 5/13 and 5/14 of Inf Bn at Jammu. The complainant had challenged the order by filing SWP No 309/2015 at Hon'ble High Court J&K, Jammu and Hon'ble High Court J&K, Jammu to quash the penalty vide order dt 10 Jul 2017, which directed the department to issue fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and to afford "an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly. HQ CE Western Comd cancelled the penalty order by Issuing speaking order No 31000/1116/PZ/66/E1D(I) dt 29 Oct 2020.
(b) Further, discipline case was referred to E-in-C's Br for seeking advice of CVO for charging the complainant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 on 13 Oct 2021. The case has been examined by D(Vigilance-MES & BRO), MoD and direction issued vide their letter No 13011/31/2021-D(Vig-MES & BRO)/44 dt 13 Jan 2022 to initiate major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Accordingly authenticated Charge Memo was fwd to HQ CE Northern Comd vide HQ CE Western Comd letter No 31000/1116/PZ/87/E1D (1) dt 24 Jan 2022 to serve upon to the complainant. Further the Charge Memo was served upon to the complainant by HQ CE Northern Comd vide letter No 42102/525/RK/CE(AF)/02/E1D (2) dt 15 Feb 2022."
Page 33 of 38Mr. Amit Ranjan, Director (D & V)/CPIO, E-in-C's branch stated that reply has already been provided to the complainant vide letters as quoted above. Further, the issue of minor penalty is dealt with by the respective commands and not by (D & V), E-in-C's branch as alleged by the complainant. The contentions raised by the complainant are a grievance which cannot be resolved under the RTI Act. However, as regards the RTI application, it has been duly replied to on every occasion. He sought time to file the order of Hon'ble High Court of J & K under reference with their written submission, which was allowed by the bench.
A consolidated written submission dated 22.10.2024 received by Mr. Amit Ranjan, Director (D & V)/CPIO, E-in-C's branch enclosing the copy of High's court is taken on record.
Decision The Commission, at the outset, adversely viewed the conduct of Mr. Amit Ranjan, Director (D & V)/CPIO, E-in-C's branch who did not bother to file written submission enumerating details of events and factual background in these matters despite prayed for the same before the bench within reasonable time which leads to delay in disposal of these cases. In this regard, he is advised to exercise due diligence while dealing with the RTI matters in future.
It is also noted that copy of the complaints have not been served by the complainant at the time of filing the same before the Commission.
Now, coming to the merits of instant complaints, the Commission after adverting to facts and circumstances of the cases, hearing both the parties and perusal of records observes that present matters are the complaints filed under section 18(2) of the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC
864. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon Page 34 of 38 perusal of the facts on record the Commission finds that an appropriate timely reply has been given by the Respondent vide their letters 21.06.2023, 30.06.2023, 10.07.2023, 17.07.2023, 18.07.2023, 21.07.2023 and 27.07.2023 respectively. Further, out of RTI context, the action taken report on the complainant's grievance was also intimated to him through CPGRAM's portal vide letters dated 15.11.2022, 02.12.2022 and 04.01.2023 which was not challenged by the complainant.
It also appears during the hearing that the complainant is harbouring his grievance alleging issuance of show cause notice de-novo for major penalty on the same issue by the Respondent Public Authority which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the complainant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was 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 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."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any Page 35 of 38 public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIOs. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Be that as it may, the Commission notes that 12 complaints are listed today, i.e. on 15.10.2024 for a hearing which shows that the complainant has filed numerous RTI Applications. This intention of the Complainant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Complainant has misconceived the role of the Central Information Commission, and it is apparent from his submissions in each and every case that he is trying to create fear among the CPIOs and the FAAs by pressing for penalty against them. The CIC is an adjudicating body to give relief only in such cases where it is found that the relevant information is not provided to the applicant. However, in the present cases, the CPIO and the FAA cannot be expected to satisfy the Complainant, when the Complainant is not in search of information but only trying to settle his baseless grievances against the department by filing multiple, vexatious, repetitive RTI applications followed by complaints. All the Complaints are interrelated in some manner or the other and are clearly indicative of absolute misuse of the provisions of the Page 36 of 38 RTI Act. The Commission further finds it expedient to note that the PIOs are already doing this assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act" has been explained in a detailed manner. The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur - 302017 is as under:
"...It is noted that the Appellant is a serving government employee under the Respondent Public Authority. Therefore, while taking recourse to the RTI Act for his service-related matters, the Appellant is expected to approach the Public Authorities with clean hands. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy.
The Appellant being a serving employee of the respondent Public Authority has as much right to information as is available to any other citizen of India. However, such a serving employee has an added obligation to frame the request in simplest and most easily understood form possible because he/she knows the circumstances under which his/her colleagues are working while also discharging the additional duty as CPIO and FAA. Therefore, the conduct of the Appellant in the present matter, to say the least, is questionable and is not appreciated.
Accordingly, the appellant is cautioned and admonished wherein he should keep in mind that the RTI Act should be used judiciously, sensibly and responsibly so that purpose of the RTI Act would not be defeated.Page 37 of 38
The Commission leaves it to the concerned disciplinary authority for any consequent action in the matter."
In view of the above, the complainant is advised to make judicious and sensible use of his right to information in future. Intervention of the Commission is not required in these matters.
With these observations, the instant complaints are disposed of.
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 38 of 38 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)