Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sqn Ldr Mukund Sharma vs Indian Air Force on 26 December, 2023

                             केन्द्रीय सच
                                        ू ना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/IAIRF/A/2022/130358

Sqn Ldr Mukund Sharma                                    .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO,
HQ WESTERN AIR COMMAND IAF,
SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI - 110010                      ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :    19-12-2023
Date of Decision                    :    22-12-2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari


Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    15-11-2021
CPIO replied on                     :    23-12-2021
First appeal filed on               :    27-12-2021
First Appellate Authority's order   :    03-02-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    20-06-2022



Information sought

:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"1. That the applicant has been counselled on 15 Nov 21 at 1700 hrs by AOC 35Wg. AF in the presence of COO 35Wg. AF and the AOC (RO) made adverse comment against the applicant in the counselling register and the applicant disagreed with the same. The applicant requested AOC 35Wg. AF to provide the copy of counselling to the applicant but it was denied. Therefore, it is desirable to have the certified copy of said counselling.

2 It is therefore requested that you may be pleased to-

(a) Provide certified copy of counselling as was carried out by AOC 35Wg.

AF on 15 Nov 21 against the applicant.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.12.2021 stating as under:

"Your above mentioned RTI application has been examined at this HQ and it is informed that the information sought by you vide this application is held by the Public Authority in fiduciary capacity and that the undersigned is of the opinion that no larger public interest would be served by disclosure of such information Therefore, the information sought by you vide this application is exempted from disclosure in terms of Sections 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. 2005 Further, in case of Wg Cdr RK Mahajan (Retd) Vs Indian Air Force (File No CIC/RM/A/2014/002005 dated 07 Sep 16). it was held by the Hon'ble CIC that "The ACR of military personnel are not disclosable in terms of Shri Dev Dutt Vs Union of India & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every entry in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of every employee under the State, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him".

The additional fee of Rs 20/- which you had attached along with your RTI application dated 15 Nov 21 is being returned to you."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2021. The FAA vide its order dated 03.02.2022, has directed the CPIO to provide a copy of letter no. WAC/2906/13/6/299/20/CPIO dated 23 Dec 2021 once again free of cost.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: A K Shukla, CAPIO, and Shri Manoj Kumar, UDC, appeared in person.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought certified copy of counselling which was carried out by AOC 35Wg. AF on 15 Nov 21 against him. The respondent informed the appellant had seen copy of the letter by which he was counselled. However, they denied to provide copy of the same to the appellant on the ground that it was held by them under fiduciary capacity and they claimed exemption under sections 8 (1)

(e) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought certified copy of counselling which was carried out by AOC 35Wg. AF on 15 Nov 21 against him. The respondent denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. However, they failed to explain as to how the information sought would fall within the parameter of held by them in fiduciary capacity while denying the information. Moreover, the cases referred by the then CPIO are distinguishable and do not apply in the instant case. Perusal of the records revealed that the appellant is adversely affected as he was counselled and being an affected party, he is entitled for the information. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI 3 application and provide the information, within two weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date 22-12-2023 Sqn Ldr Mukund Sharma 35 Wing AF Station Suratgarh Rajasthan - 335804.