Central Information Commission
Kailash Chandra Bachkheti vs Indian Army on 18 January, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IARMY/A/2022/141621
Kailash Chandra Bachkheti .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Brigadier, RTI Cell, Addl DG
AE, G-6, D-1, Wing, Sena Bhawan,
Gate No 4, IHQ of MoD
(Army), New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04-01-2024
Date of Decision : 17-01-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28-02-2022
CPIO replied on : 06-04-2022
First appeal filed on : 25-04-2022
First Appellate Authority's : 07-06-2022
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23-08-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. As per letter No A/60052/Misc/T-2/MS-13 dated 19 Jan 2022 request for MS Interview was denied. Request to share the copies of Noting Sheet/Minute Sheet/Letters on which the case for interview was processed with MS for interview.1
2. CTC copies of Strength Return IAFF-3008 from 01 Jun 2020 to 01 Dec 2022 of 33 ADSR onto which MS4D1 issued letter No A/18102/Sigs/IC75998/MS4D1 dated 21 Jan 2022.
3. CTC copies of Rules/Policies and procedures for publishing strength Return (IAFF-3008) and Part II order.
4. CTC Copies of Statement of Case and Recommendations of RO &SRO onto which the debarment of Col Samar Sirohi granted by MS 4C vide letter No A/17159/63245/Debar/MS4CR Policy dated 23 Aug 21.
5. CTC copies of all letters originated from MS Branch for the debarment/in the process of debarment of Col Samar Sirohi.
6. CTC Copy of PPSA for the posting of Maj KC Bachkheti for the year 2021."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 06.04.2022stating as under:
"Para 1The officer's request for MS interview was examined and not found feasible as per the extant norms and the same was informed to the officer. Internal noting on the issue contains sensitive information pertaining to ACR and details of other officer and hence is being denied as upheld by various CIC orders.
Para 2CTC copies of strength return IAFF-3008 from 01 Jun 2020 to 01 Dec 2022 of 33 ADSR may please be obtained from the originator of the document i.e. 33 ADSR. The above mentioned document is held in MS branch in fiduciary capacity and the same cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 1(e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 3The information sought does not pertain to MS Branch. The same may please be obtained AG/MP or the originator of the document i.e. 33 ADSR.
Para 4Copy of recommendations of RO and SRO on the subject as mentioned by the applicant in his RTI application, has been held in MS Branch in fiduciary capacity and the same cannot be provided under the provisions of Sec 8(1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Para 5The information sought pertains to Third party which is protected from disclosure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Para 6 PPSA is a document initiated by the officer himself and the copy of the same must be available with the officer."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.04.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 07.06.2022, held as under:-
"AND NOW THEREFORE, after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that appropriate reply has already been provisioned to the appellant by the CPIO vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OF-71980 dated 06 Apr 2022 except Para 2 and Para 3. I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO. However, CPIO is directed to obtain appropriate reply for Para 3 of the initial application from concerned agency of Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) and provision the same to the appellant within two weeks on receipt of is order and also transfer the application to 33 ADSR for reply to the Query in Para 2 of the initial application."
In compliance of the FAA order dated 07.06.2022 the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.07.2022 stating as under:
"The requisite information is still awaited, as per you letter mentioned at para 1 above please."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC Respondent: Major SHINDE SL, Col. Sumita Patanayak CPIO, Major Tarun MS Legal Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that incomplete information has been furnished to him.
The Respondent submitted that with respect to the Query No.1 of the RTI Application they have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India. This judgment pertains to showing the confidential record entries which have been made by the reporting officers. In Para 38 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "We, however, make it clear that the above directions (i.e. directions therein Para 36), will not apply to military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by this court in Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh. But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State." Further the matter is sub judice before Hon'ble AFT.3
The appellant averred that the said judgement quoted by the Respondent is applicable on the matters of ACR and not on the MS Interview matter. He explained that the information requested by him to provide Copy of Noting Sheet etc on which the case for the MS interview was processed. He claimed that the information was denied citing the reasons of being sensitive. However, the Military Secretary (MS) interview was sought by the applicant related to his own ACR and the same was denied. Blanket denial by the deemed PIO (MS Branch) is not in order, he alleged. They had the option to severe the selected sensitive information under Section l0 of RTI Act.
The Respondent stated that the Appellant has already been informed that his application for MS Interview has been examined and was rejected by the MS branch, therefore, a copy of noting cannot be given. The reasons are not required to be given to the Appellant, there are many factors taken into consideration and a lot many agencies are involved in the process, he averred. Moreover, the Appellant has a right to file an Appeal and the said option has already been availed by him, as he has filed an application before AFT.
The Appellant contended that if the MS branch would have replied transparently, he would not have appealed before the AFT. They have arbitrarily taken the decision, he claimed. He, in order to make the requirement simpler clarified that on Query No. 1, he now specifically requires the information about the date on which the noting was initiated and dates on which it passed through each step of the process and the date on which the competent authority took the decision in his application for MS Interview. Other information pertaining to point No. 1 of his RTI Application may be disclosed to him if deemed fit by the Respondent.
Information on Query No. 2 & 4 has been provided, both the Appellant and the Respondent were in consonance.
On Query No. 3, the Appellant claimed that he is ready to pay the requisite fees if the documents are voluminous in nature, as mentioned by the Respondent in their reply. He clarified that, he is posted in a far flung area, because of which it would not be feasible for him to come and inspect the voluminous records. The Respondent agreed to provide the same on payment of requisite fees.
On Query No. 5, the Appellant claimed that no personal information of any third party is sought as he himself is the affected party. Any third party information may be severed under section 10, he requested. He explained that Mr. Samar Sirohi was his commanding officer, when he received the debarment from the MS branch. To ascertain if the debarment process has been duly carried, he had sought this information. However, during hearing he clarified that his right to information will be served if he is provided the link/ URL of 4 procedure followed in such cases and step-by-step action taken towards debarment of an officer of his rank.
The Respondent claimed that the information on Query No. 5 pertains to third party information.
On Query No. 6 the Respondent submitted that each officer is required to file request on the PPSA (Posting Planning Software Application). Since the officer fills it himself, copy is ought to be maintained by such officer. But the Appellant is asking for his own PPSA form through an RTI Application. When queried by the Commission that applying officers as usually posted in remote areas and power outage may happen just before taking a print out, the Respondent admitted that such an eventuality is possible.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, on Query No. 1 the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the date on which they had received the request of Appellants MS Interview, the date on which they started processing it, the date on which it was culminated in the final approval by the competent authority along with the dates on which each of the intermediate step/noting was made, redacting all other information as per Section 8 of the RTI Act.
On Query No. 3 the Respondent is directed to furnish the information along with all the enclosures after charging the requisite fees from the Appellant.
No further intervention on Query No. 2 & 4 of the RTI Application.
On query No. 5 the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the link/ URL of procedure and step-by-step action taken towards debarment of any officer. No third party information to be given.
On Query No. 6, the Commission observes that the information sought regarding the PPSA (Posting Planning Software Application) is not a prohibited or confidential document, as copy is maintained in the official records as well. The purpose of the RTI Act is to facilitate information not to withhold it. The Commission directs the Respondent to provide the CTC Copy of PPSA for the posting of the Appellant for year 2021.5
The Respondent is directed to furnish all the information as per above to the Appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011-26181927 Date 17-01-2024 Sh. Kailash Chandra Bachkheti 75 (i) Inf Bde Gp Singh Coy C/o 56 APO 916075, New Delhi - 110010.6