Central Information Commission
Jayant Kumar Singh vs Department Of Defence on 30 April, 2020
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society
केन्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
Jayant Kumar Singh ....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Sainik School Ambikapur,
Village-Mendra Kalan, Post-Bhitthi Kalan
Surguja, Chhattisgarh
2. CPIO,
Sainik School Balachadi,
PO : Balachadi,
Jamnagar, Gujarat
PIN- 361230
3. CPIO,
Sainik School Ghorakhal,
District - Nainital,
Uttarakhand
4. CPIO,
Sainik School Gopalganj,
Post-Hathwa, Gopalganj,
Bihar
5. CPIO
Sainik School Kalikiri
District- Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh
PIN- 517234
1
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society
6. CPIO,
Sainik School Bhubaneswar,
District - Khurda,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha
PIN-751005
7. CPIO,
Sainik School Korukunda
Distt.-Vizhianagaram
Andhra Pradesh
PIN- 535214
8. CPIO,
Sainik School Nagrota,
Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir
PIN-181221
9. CPIO,
Sainik Schools Society,
Ministry of Defence,
Room No.101, D-1 Wing
Sena Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 ...प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Decision 27/04/2020
S.No. Second Appeal Date of RTI CPIO Reply First FAA order Second
Diary No. Application dated Appeal dated Appeal
(Corresponding filed on filed on
to last digits of
File No.)
Sainik School, Ambikapur (Respondent No.1)
1. 616226 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 16/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
record
2. 616227 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 16/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
2
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society
record
3. 616228 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 16/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
record
4. 616229 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 16/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
record
5. 616230 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 05/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
record
6. 616231 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 05/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
record
7. 616232 29/11/2017 27/01/2018 05/02/2018 Not on 10/04/2018
record
8. 617335 29/11/2017 27/01/2018 12/02/2018 Not on 19/04/2018
record
9. 617861 21/11/2017 03/01/2018 29/01/2018 Not on 23/04/2018
& record
19/01/2018
10. 617862 24/11/2017 27/01/2018 07/02/2018 Not on 23/04/2018
record
11. 617864 24/11/2017 27/01/2018 07/02/2018 Not on 23/04/2018
record
12. 618104 + 06/11/2017 04/01/2018 08/12/2017 Not on 25/05/2018
618921 record
13. 618913 11/10/2017 13/12/2017 13/11/2017 Not on 04/05/2018
record
14. 618914 13/10/2017 14/12/2017 13/11/2017 Not on 04/05/2018
record
15. 618915 19/10/2017 14/12/2017 20/11/2017 Not on 04/05/2018
record
16. 618918 06/11/2017 29/12/2017 08/12/2017 Not on 04/05/2018
record
17. 618919 06/11/2017 29/12/2017 08/12/2017 Not on 04/05/2018
record
18. 618923 09/11/2017 04/01/2018 08/12/2017 Not on 04/05/2018
record
19. 618925 30/11/2017 27/01/2018 07/02/2018 Not on 04/05/2018
record
20. 620453 20/09/2017 14/12/2017 07/11/2017 Not on 22/12/2017
record
3
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society
21. 620455 03/10/2017 13/12/2017 07/11/2017 Not on 21/12/2017
record
22. 620638 14/10/2017 12/12/2017 14/11/2017 Not on 15/05/2018
record
23. 621150 21/10/2017 12/12/2017 20/11/2017 Not on 14/05/2018
record
24. 623448 + 19/10/2017 14/12/2017 20/11/2017 11/05/2018 27/04/2018
623450
25. 623615 24/11/2017 27/01/2018& 07/02/2018 27/04/2018 15/06/2018
11/05/2018
26. 623774 22/11/2017 18/01/2018 24/12/2017 Not on 14/06/2018
record
27. 628813 22/04/2018 25/06/2018 07/06/2018 Not on 16/08/2018
record
28. 628815 22/04/2018 25/06/2018 07/06/2018 Not on 16/08/2018
record
29. 628817 22/04/2018 25/06/2018 07/06/2018 Not on 16/08/2018
record
30. 623683 06/12/2017 Not on 21/03/2018 Not on 17/06/2018
record record
31. 623960 01/12/2017 Not on 26/03/2018 14/05/2018 22/06/2018
record
32. 624016 01/12/2017 Not on 21/03/2018 Not on 22/06/2018
record record
33. 629548 07/05/2018 Not on 08/06/2018 Not on 25/08/2018
record record
Sainik School, Balachadi (Respondent No.2)
34. 628631 26/04/2018 Not on 06/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
35. 628629 26/04/2018 Not on 06/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
Sainik School, Ghorakhal (Respondent No.3)
36. 617360 24/11/2017 31/01/2018 10/02/2018 Not on 16/04/2018
record
37. 617865 30/11/2017 31/01/2018 10/02/2018 13/04/2018 23/04/2018
Sainik School, Gopalganj (Respondent No.4)
38. 629551 23/04/2018 Not on 06/06/2018 Not on 25/08/2018
record record
4
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society
Sainik School, Kalikiri (Respondent No.5)
39. 628632 26/04/2018 Not on 06/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
Sainik School, Khurda (Respondent No.6)
40. 628642 02/05/2018 30/05/2018 06/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record
Sainik School, Korukonda (Respondent No.7)
41. 628628 25/04/2018 Not on 06/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
42. 620642 20/09/2017 13/12/2017 07/11/2017 Not on 15/05/2018
record
Sainik School,Nagrota (Respondent No.8)
43. 628634 02/05/2018 Not on 07/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
44. 628637 02/05/2018 Not on 07/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
45. 629594 02/05/2018 Not on 07/06/2018 Not on 14/08/2018
record record
Sainik School Society (Respondent No.9)
46. 620618 21/10/2017 Not on 20/11/2017 Not on 14/05/2018
record record
47. 620680 09/11/2017 Not on 09/12/2017 Not on 15/05/2018
record record
48. 629552 25/04/2018 Not on 06/06/2018 Not on 25/08/2018
record record
49. 629556 23/04/2018 05/06/2018 06/06/2018 Not on 25/08/2018
record
Information sought:
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616226 The Appellant sought information through 3 points in terms of copy of noting of the incidence which compelled the then Principal to award censure to Lt Col SS Singh (the then Headmaster) vide SSAP/Conf/SSS/1908 dated 24 Feb 2014, including inter alia, copy of application submitted by the then Headmaster Lt Col SS Singh in his defence, copy of final decision reached on the issue and names of the officer who initiated the mediation on the issue.5
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616227 The Appellant sought all the documents/correspondences/noting pertaining to altercation between Sub JP Singh JCO IC NCC Coy and Mr MK Tripathi ANO in 2014- 15 session.
File no.: CIC/ARMHQ/A/2018/616228/DODEF The Appellant through 3 points sought information pertaining to audit objections for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616229 The Appellant sought information through 3 points pertaining to movement of Mr BK Pandey, Master (Eng) of Sainik School Ambikapur to Sainik Schools Society.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616230 The Appellant sought copy of movement order in respect of GE Arvind Kumar Jha to Chennai, including inter alia, copy of survey report on completion of tour at Chennai, copy of claim submitted by GE Arvind Kumar Jha and payment to that effect.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616231 The Appellant sought information through 5 points pertaining to issue of FRW & CVs to the bonafide and authorized beneficiaries for year 2013-2014.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616232 The Appellant sought copy of notice sent to Mr Sumeet Kaushik for obtaining his willingness/unwillingness to share information pertaining to him with regard to his recruitment with Sainik School Ambikapur, attendance register of Sainik School Ambikapur reflecting his name and authority letter by CFA for such a long duration attachment with Sainik Schools Society along with a copy of communication from Mr Summet Kaushik negating the sharing of information pertaining to him by Sainik School Ambikapur.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617335 The Appellant sought information through 7 points in terms of certified copies of the documents in respect of recruitment of LDC of the Board of Officers held in Dec 2013 in which Mr Sumeet Kaushik was recruited.6
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617861 The Appellant sought attested copy of letter from MoD Defence received in second or third quarter of 2013 through Sainik Schools Society canvassing the inter school transfer of Mr Ashok Kumar Saini along with copies of other documents/disciplinary proceedings against Mr Ashok Kumar Saini/letters/replies/noting initiated on this letter of MoD Defence.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617862 The Appellant sought information through 5 points pertaining to Claims submitted by Mr MK Tripathi (Master), Mr Pramod Kumar (GE) and Mr Shamim Anasari (Horse Riding Instructor) for market survey and purchase of Equestrian equipments, including inter alia, report on market survey and the quotations obtained by the said personnel and seeking sanction, Noting on go ahead sanction for affecting the purchase etc. File no.: CIC/ARMHQ/A/2018/617864/DODEF The Appellant sought information through 7 points pertaining to Claims submitted by Mr BK Pandey (Master) in case of his movement with regard to designing and printing of School magazine in 2013 to Raipur, Nagpur and New Delhi, including inter alia, copy of report on market survey & the quotations obtained and seeking go ahead sanction, Noting on go ahead sanction for affecting the job etc File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618921 + CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618104 The Appellant sought attested copies of permanent & communication addresses at the time of application, educational institutions address and work experiences in respect of the certain employees of the school (a) Mr Ravindra Kumar Tiwari, Asst Master (Hindi); (b) Mr Anand Kumar Tripathi, Librarian; (c) Mr Ashish Tiwari, Asst Master (English); (d) Mr Sunil Kumar Dubey Asst Master (Science); (e) Mr Satyendra Kumar Pandey, Asst Master (Maths); (f) Mr Sudhir Kumar Asst Master (English).
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618913 The Appellant sought copy of complete Board Proceedings of the Recruitment in which Mr Niranjan Dash was appointed as UDC along with other candidates recommended in the panel and their answer sheets and application sets, including inter alia, Copy of attendance sheet of the day of recruitment test so as 7 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society to ascertain total number of candidates taking recruitment test, Copy of advertisements of the News Papers along with size and date, in which the advertisement of the recruitment was published etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618914 The Appellant sought attested copy of complete Board Proceedings of the Recruitment in which Mrs Nidhi Lal Das was appointed as Art & Craft Teacher along with other candidates recommended in the panel and their answer sheets and application sets, including inter alia, Copy of attendance sheet of the day of recruitment test so as to ascertain total number of candidates taking recruitment test, Copy of advertisement published for this recruitment and BPs of procedure adopted for shortlisting of candidates etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618915 The Appellant through 6 points sought copy of noting/letter initiating action on the joint complaint filed by twenty-one academic staff on 10 Mar 2014 seeking clarification on the status of NPS Fund contributed by the employee as well as employer.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618918 The Appellant sought attested copies of extant rules laid down in the Rule book or Sainik School Society rules under which School can hire the services of Advocates/Counsels when the Govt Counsel is available to provide service and the budget head under which these expenses are to be reflected along with copy of noting moved with specific reason and sanction by CFA to hire Advocates/Counsels for serving caveats to Mr Roushan Kumar Asst Master (Comp Science) and Mr Prakash Tiwari Asst Master (English) after conduct of their DPC in 2013.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618919 The Appellant sought attested copies of rule for subscription of PF by the school employees, willingness & unwillingness obtained by each employee and list of employees subscribing PF and copies of communications about PF subscription to the entrants duly acknowledged by them File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618923 The Appellant sought the attested copies of all the records, noting and letters available on delay in recruitment of Office Superintendent at Sainik School Ambikapur violating the extant rule of appointing Office Superintendent on 8 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society completion of two hundred admissions along with attested copy of details of the Officer/Staff detailed and responsible for this inordinate delay.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618925 The Appellant sought all the documents and correspondences pertaining to allegation of NCC Staff on alteration of marks of NCC "B" Certificate Exam in respect of the first batch of the school and aftermath faced by the NCC Staff on this issue.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620453 The Appellant sought information regarding procurement of 13 porta cabins in terms of file noting(s); copy of classifieds inviting tender for the procurement; estimates; copy of board proceedings of awarding the contract etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620455 The Appellant sought copies of complete issues of altercations, disputes and disagreements which prevailed between Lt Col SS Singh and Capt (IN) G Rambabu during their tenure.
File no.:CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620638 The Appellant sought copy of TDS submission reports for the financial year 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12 and 2012 - 13 and details of the fine, if any, paid due to late submission.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/621150 The Appellant sought attested copies of the performance sheet recorded by the Assessing Officer and terms of reference issued to him for assessment of performance, including inter alia, qualification and administrative experience of Assessing Officer, copy of tasks specifying the time limits handed over to the Appellant and their accomplishment periods duly acknowledged by the Appellant etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623450 + CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623448 The Appellant sought copies of authority letter convening the Investigation Board with terms of reference and complete proceedings of the Investigation carried out to establish the veracity of Mr SP Tripathi, MTD being thrashed in full public view of residential area of Staff and Cadets by Mr DN Pandey, QM.9
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623615 The Appellant sought information through 8 points pertaining to claims submitted by BK Pandey incase of movement for designing and printing of school magazine, including inter alia, report on market survey & the quotation obtained, noting on go ahead sanction for affecting the job etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623774 The Appellant sought attested copies of directives and provisions issued on Mess Management pertaining to running of Cadets Mess/Refectory, Scale of ration defined per head, Standards defined to procure the provisions, preservation of the provisions stock, precautions taken against infection chart in respect of food handlers and free from infection cards in respect of cooks from Military/Govt Hospital, seeking of expert advices on mess management, use of preservatives, mess cleanliness and infection free food handling.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628813 The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for the post of Master (Chemistry).
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628815 The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for the post of Asst. Master (Social Sciences).
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628817 The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and recommended 10 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for the post of Asst. Master (Math).
File no.: CIC/MODEF/A/2018/623683 The Appellant sought attested copy of authority letter from Niranjan Kumar Dash, UDC demanding the culmination of BoI to prompt the Presiding Officer to demand reply from him on deposition questionnaire containing 25 vexing questions within two days and deliberately not including the reply submitted by him on 22.01.2014.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623960 The Appellant sought documents/correspondences/noting pertaining to discontinuation of outsourced mess services from the 2014-15 sessions.
File no.: CIC/MODEF/A/2018/624016 The Appellant sought information through 5 points pertaining to paternity leave application of Niranjan Kumar Dash, UDC, Sainik School Ambikapur applied during April 2013.
File no.: CIC/MODEF/A/2018/629548 The Appellant sought information through 17 points pertaining to powers vested in the Disciplinary Authority and parameters based on which Appellant was terminated, including inter alia, all the correspondences/notesheets prepared during the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628631 + CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628629(Same Appeal registered twice) The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and the finally recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process for LDCs conducted on 23.04.2018.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617360 The Appellant sought information through 7 points pertaining to a reply of the CPIO dated 21.11.2017, wherein it was advised that "Answer scripts of candidates 11 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society who appeared in the selection process for the post of office superintendent on 23 Nov 2012 have been destroyed", including inter alia, name, designation and office address of the officers, whose assistance was sought by CPIO, Name, designation and phone numbers of the officer who ordered the destruction/disposal of the above-mentioned Public Records of such a high order deciding the fate of ten candidates and also the copy of order destroying answer and attendance sheet of OS Recruitment test etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617865 The Appellant sought copy of audit objections for the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, including inter alia, copy of replies submitted to Audit Authorities for settlement of objections for the aforementioned period, copy of unsettled objections for the aforementioned period.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/629551 The Appellant through sought attested copies of the advertisement published, applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and the finally recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for QMs and LDCs in 2011, including inter alia, copy of release of vacancy by Sainik Schools Society, copy of letters approaching State Govt, Chairman LBA and Educational Institutes to detail Members etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628632 The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and the finally recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for Asst. Master (Maths & Hindi) in recent past.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628642 The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, BPs of applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, 12 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and the finally recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for Masters in 2015 & 2017.
File no.: CIC/ARMHQ/A/2018/628628/DODEF The Appellant sought information through 19 points regarding DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) conducted for Master(Eng) at Sainik School Korukunda.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620642 The Appellant sought copy of BPs and file noting in respect of Mr Ravindra Tiwari TGT (Hindi) released/resigned/terminated along with copy of his application seeking transfer to Sainik School Ambikapur etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628637 + CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628634(Same Appeal registered twice) The Appellant sought attested copies of the advertisement published, BPs of applications short listing, attendance sheet of the recruitment test date, document verification sheet and establishment of candidates' identity taking recruitment test, Board Proceedings of the recruitment test and the finally recommended candidates answer sheets, interview assessment sheet in pencil and their application sets of the recruitment process conducted for Asst. Master (Urdu & Computer Science) in first & second quarter of 2018.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/629594 The Appellant sought information through 19 points pertaining to conduct of DPC of Master (Eng) at Sainik School Nagrota prior to filling of the vacancy by direct recruitment in second quarter of 2018.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620618 The Appellant sought attested copies of authority letters/noting of movements authorized by Sainik Schools Society/MoD in respect of Lt Col SS Singh, the then Headmaster during his tenure at Sainik School Ambikapur when Capt G Rambabu was the Principal and in command, including inter alia, copy of all the reports/complaints submitted by Capt G Rambabu alleging Lt Col SS Singh of various and several wrongdoings, copy of noting submitted by the then IOs at 13 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society Sainik Schools Society to Army HQ/MoD and directing many a times Lt Col SS Singh to proceed on leave etc. File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620680 The Appellant sought attested copies of all the records, noting and letters available on delay of release of vacancy at Sainik School Ambikapur for the post of Masters (Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics & Computer Science and Lab Assistants) along with attested copy of details of the Officer/Staff detailed and responsible for this inordinate delay.
File no.: CIC/MODEF/A/2018/629552 The Appellant sought information through 4 points pertaining to details of vehicles hired as well as Hotels booked for IO'S during inspection visit in year 2013.
File no.: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/629556 The Appellant sought information through 7 points pertaining to disciplinary cases, complaints against Service Officers, School Administration and action thereon taken by IOs for resolving them in last seven calendar years.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Observations The instant cases have been clubbed for decision to avoid multiplicity of proceedings based on a deduction of the Commission while adjudicating on earlier Appeals filed by the Appellant against public authorities coming under the Sainik Schools Society. The averred deduction has been recorded in the orders dated 25.05.2019 in the following words:
"At the outset, Commission remarked at the number of Appeals of the Appellant filed against Sainik Schools which have been decided by this bench in the past as well as 16 other Appeals being heard simultaneously with the instant case. Commission recorded its displeasure against the apparent misuse of RTI Act by the Appellant as it was observed that all of these RTI Applications and Appeals are based on his myriad grievances emanating from his termination from service. It was also opined that by way of filling these many RTI Applications seeking all 14 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society and sundry information, Appellant is causing harassment to the public authorities as well as wasting the time and resources of the Commission."
A close scrutiny of the nature of information sought by the Appellant till date from various public authorities under Sainik Schools Society suggest an aimless exercise on his part in asserting his right to information. In a majority of cases decided till date, Commission has noted that the Appellant seeks third party information entailing no larger public interest; or raises speculative queries under the pretense of seeking information based on his hypothesis or simply seeks such relief from the Commission which is outside the scope of its adjudication. A total of 39 such cases of the Appellant decided till date by this bench since the year 2016 are available on the website of the Commission at cic.gov.in.
Now, having perused the instant 51 Second Appeals, this bench is of the considered opinion that these cases are merely a protraction of the earlier cases premised on sundry subject matters concerning random facets of Administration of Sainik Schools Society. Each of these RTI Applications either question the veracity of recruitments of a handful of employees; or their capability of executing duties; or as to why certain teaching staff was delegated with administrative duties; or lament about alleged bias in selection of certain staff and in some cases, Appellant has raised interrogative queries questioning the merits of certain BOIs constituted, casting aspersions at the Investigating Officer of said BOIs. During the hearing of the earlier cases decided on 25.05.2019 (supra), even as Commission apprised the Appellant regarding the observations of apparent misuse of RTI Act on his part, he merely stated that he is fighting corruption and that Commission is at liberty to decide his cases in whichever manner. Having adjudicated upon the number of such cases till date as well as from the nature of queries in the instant cases, Commission observes that Appellant projects a rather rancorous approach in inundating the Sainik Schools, particularly, Sainik School, Ambikapur with these many RTI Applications, presumably to pressurize the public authority into settling the varied grievances emanating from his termination. Notably, the sum and substance of the stimulus behind the unabashed filing of RTI Applications by the Appellant against these public authorities can be gauged from a prayer of the Appellant extracted from one of the instant Appeals (File no.: CIC/MODEF/A/2018/629548 referred at Serial No.33 in the chart above) reproduced verbatim as under:
15Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society "Non provisioning of information sought in sub paragraphs 1(a) to (q) strengthens my claim of wrong done with me and inaction at every level wherever I have appealed reflects the injustice meted out to me. This delay in addressing the request insinuates acquiesces of injustice done with the appellant and abuse of discretionary powers vested in Principal.
I humbly request your kind honour to................. to order an inquiry to adjudge the competency level of the then Principal Capt G Rambabu, to order an inquiry to ascertain the reason for abuse of powers as an assesse and causing turbulence in someone's life and career without considering the vibrant past career of over two decades with Indian Air Force,........."
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, even if Commission were to sparingly acknowledge that this is an attempt on the Appellant's part to fight corruption within the Sainik Schools Society Administration, the means adopted by him stifles and negates the very purpose of RTI Act. In other words, however noble the end of this vociferous attempt of bringing about probity in the functioning of Sainik Schools Society Administration would have been, fact remains that the means adopted by the Appellant regrettably speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act. As much as a CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicants to not transgress the spirit of RTI Act by clogging the functioning of public authorities with mundane RTI Applications merely claiming that it is intrinsic to fighting corruption.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities, the notion of misuse of RTI Act which is well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible 16 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."17
Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still."
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not afterall absolute.
Here, Commission deems it fit to highlight the fact that although RTI Act does not expressly provide for imposing costs on a frivolous RTI Applicant or barring such applicants from mounting pressure on the public authorities under the guise of exercising right to information, but where the process of Court is being abused, as held in Rajni Maindiratta's case (supra) - 'Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.'In this context, the concept of inherent powers vested in the superior courts to prevent the abuse of 18 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society the process of Court can be relied upon by the Commission to derive an analogous power to prevent the misuse of RTI Act, as the Preamble of the Act clearly postulates that it is necessary to harmonise the revelation of information in actual practice with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd[(1990) 4 SCC 453]held that the legislature has intended and has conceded certain powers to the tribunals in their assigned field of jurisdiction for the efficacious and meaningful exercise of their power. Such powers are implied in every tribunal unless expressly barred. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under:
"8. There is no doubt that the Tribunal functions as a court within the limits of its jurisdiction. It has all the powers conferred expressly by the statute. Furthermore, being a judicial body, it has all those incidental and ancillary powers which are necessary to make fully effective the express grant of statutory powers. Certain powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, not because they are inherent in the Tribunal, nor because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the legislative intent that the power which is expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised. The powers of the Tribunal are no doubt limited. Its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined, but within the bounds of its jurisdiction, it has all the powers expressly and impliedly granted. The implied grant is, of course, limited by the express grant and, therefore, it can only be such powers as are truly incidental and ancillary for doing all such acts or employing all such means as are reasonably necessary to make the grant effective. As stated in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (11th edn.) "where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution".
(Emphasis Supplied) The vulnerability of this benevolent statute to such misuse cannot be allowed to perpetuate once Commission has taken cognizance of the intent of the RTI Applicant. It would not be out of place to deem the Appellant as a vexatious/frivolous litigant who has been afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing and any further opportunity of being heard on the same grievances is not going to alter or improve the merits of these cases, rather it would seem as an empty formality. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Mills Co Ltd. v.
19Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 380 on the violability of the rules of natural justice held as under:
"We do not think it either feasible or even desirable to lay down any fixed or rigorous yard-stick in this manner. The concept of natural justice cannot be put into a straight-jacket. It is futile, therefore, to look for definitions or standards of natural justice from various decisions and then try to apply them to the facts of any given case. The only essential point that has to be kept in mind in all cases is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and that the administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably..... See, for instance, the observations of Lord Parker in re H.K. (an infant), (1967) 2 QB 617. It only means that such measure of natural justice should be applied as was described by Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin case (supra) as 'insusceptible of exact definition but what a reasonable man would regard as a fair procedure in particular circumstances'. However, even the application of the concept of fair-play requires real flexibility. Everything will depend on the actual facts and circumstances of a case. As Tucker, L.J., observed in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All ER 109:
'The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject- matter that is being dealt with and so forth.' The concept of vexatious litigation has gained ground over the years through various judgments of the superior courts imposing exemplary costs on such litigants. Moreover, the 192nd report of the Law Commission placed on record a Draft Bill, namely, the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Bill, 2005to 'prevent the institution or continuance of vexatious proceedings, civil and criminal, in the High Courts and Courts subordinate thereto.'; while several states like Maharashtra, Kerala, Goa etc. have already enacted Vexatious Litigation Acts. Thus, the menace caused by vexatious/frivolous litigants is well recognized and if similar obstruction is faced by quasi-judicial bodies particularly with respect to statutes like the RTI Act, which is premised on bringing transparency and accountability in government functioning for the larger good of the public, it is only axiomatic that such misuse ought to be curbed. When we speak of the enormity of public interest entailed in the enactment of RTI Act, it is prudent to hold that in disposing of the multitude of perceived grievances based RTI Applications/First Appeals/Second Appeals filed by the Appellant, the public authorities and the Commission will invariably delay 20 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society action on the RTI Applications and Appeals filed by other citizens and when we juxtapose the interest of these two categories of citizens exercising their right to information, the interest of the other category will outweigh the interests of such frivolous RTI Applicants.
The current milieu of the pandemic COVID-19 has caused a significant upheaval in the functioning of all establishments and businesses alike. While for the Commission, this translates into a huge backlog of Appeals and Complaints. In circumstances such as this, there is a pressing need to identify cases such as the ones under reference for cumulative disposal in order to facilitate expedient disposal of cases of genuine information seekers. In other words, this is where the aforementioned juxtaposition comes into play as the Commission seeks to strike a fine balance between the interests of genuine information seekers, while keeping the menace of frivolous RTI Applicants under check.
DECISION Adverting to the aforesaid observations, Commission has considered the instant cases on their merits and observes that CPIO, Sainik School, Ambikapur has highlighted upon the influx of RTI Applications by the Appellant and in a majority of cases has denied information pertaining to service related information of third parties relying on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Suprme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commission & Ors.Commission is inclined to accept the said reply of the CPIO, Sainik School, Ambikapur as appropriate keeping in view the foregoing discussion on Appellant's spree of filing RTI Applications while the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in majority of cases where service related information of third parties is sought is also upheld. In this regard, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the recent years in the matter of Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam is also relevant. Further, the reply provided by CPIO(s) of Sainik School- Ghorakhal, Khurda, Korukonda and by CPIO, Sainik Schools Society in the cases referred at Serial No.36,37,40,42,49 of the above chart, respectively, is also deemed appropriate. Similarly, case referred at Serial No. 35 of the above chart is treated as infructuous as Appellant has filed the Second Appeal against CPIO, Sainik School, Balachadi while referring to a RTI Application filed with CPIO, Sainik School, Khurda.
As regards, case numbers referred at Serial Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48 of the above chart, Commission finds that no reply of the 21 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society respective CPIO is on record. The prima-facie deemed refusal of the respective CPIOs to provide information is although viewed adversely, however, keeping in view the discussion on the apparent misuse of RTI Act by the Appellant, Commission deems it fit to afford an opportunity to the respective CPIOs to put forward their submissions in this regard.
In doing so, Commission directs the following Respondents to send their written submission explaining the reasons for prima-facie not providing any reply on the RTI Applications referred in the cases detailed below:
● Respondent No.1- Serial No. 30, 31, 32, 33;
● Respondent No.2- Serial No. 34;
● Respondent No.4- Serial No.38;
● Respondent No.5- Serial No.39;
● Respondent No.7- Serial No. 41;
● Respondent No.8- Serial No.43, 44, 45;
● Respondent No.9- Serial No.46, 47, 48 of the above chart.
The aforesaid directions should be complied by the respective Respondents within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Registry attached with this bench shall send a copy of the corresponding Second Appeals to the respective CPIOs as per the above directions.
Further, Appellant is advised to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
With the above observations and direction, the Appeal(s) are disposed of.
Divya Prakash Sinha (दिव्यप्रकाशसिन्हा) Information Commissioner (िच ू नाआयक् ु त) 22 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर्सत्यापपर्प्रनर्) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरोप्रसािसेन,उप-पंजीयक दिनांक / Date Jayant Kumar Singh 23 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society ANNEXURE
1. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616232
2. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616231
3. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616230
4. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616229
5. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2018/616228/DODEF
6. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616227
7. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/616226
8. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617335
9. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617861
10. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617862
11. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2018/617864/DODEF
12. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618104 + 618921
13. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618913
14. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618914
15. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618915
16. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618918
17. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618919
18. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618923
19. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/618925
20. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620453
21. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620455
22. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620638
23. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/621150
24. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623448 + 623450
25. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623615
26. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623774
27. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628813
28. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628815
29. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628817
30. CIC/MODEF/A/2018/623683
31. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/623960
32. CIC/MODEF/A/2018/624016
33. CIC/MODEF/A/2018/629548
34. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628631
35. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628629 24 Jayant Kumar vs. CPIO(s), Sainik Schools Society
36. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617360
37. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/617865
38. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/629551
39. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628632
40. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628642
41. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2018/628628/DODEF
42. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620642
43. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628634
44. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/628637
45. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/629594
46. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620618
47. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/620680
48. CIC/MODEF/A/2018/629552
49. CIC/DODEF/A/2018/629556 25