Central Information Commission
Shri Gurudutt vs Indian Navy on 30 December, 2023
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :CIC/INAVY/A/2022/141334
Gurudutt .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o. THE CPIO INDIAN NAVY,
HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN
NAVAL COMMAND, NAVAL BASE,
KOCHI - 682004. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20-12-2023
Date of Decision : 22-12-2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28-12-2021
CPIO replied on : 16-02-2022
First appeal filed on : 30-04-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 15-06-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23-08-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"क- यह कक दिन क ां -18.10.2021को ब ई रजिस्टरी पोस्ट रजिस्टरी कांम क-आर एच 509478366 iiv के म ध्यम से विरूद्ध सुममत (आध रनां0-5976 3609 4911) 1 पुत्र मुर री ल ल ननि सी ग ांि गुिर नी तहसील िजिल मिि नीसवििसनां0-406161डब्लू, न मसुममत, रैंकएच-11, युननटआईएनएचएसकस्तुरी, मोनां0-8683937595) के खिल फ The Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS, Ministry of Defence (Navy), New Delhi- 110011के सम्मुि िेिी थी िो आिेिक को आर०टी०आई०एक्ट-2005के म ध्यम से इस मिक यत / िरि स्त की सत्य वपत कॉपी िी ि िे ि- यह कक उपरोक्त मिक यत के म ध्यम से आपकी विि गीय क यिि ही के म ध्यम से सवििस नां0-406161 डब्लू, न म सुममत, रैंक एच-11, युननट आई एन एच एस कस्तुरी, मो०नां0-8683937595) के खिल फ िो क यिि ही की गई ि िोषी के मलये गये ब्य नो की सत्य वपत कॉपी आिेिक को आर०टी०आई०एक्ट-2005के तहत सत्य वपत िि ब दिय ि िे।
ग-यह कक उपरोक्त िोषी सवििस नां0-406161डब्लू, न म सुममत, रैंक एच-11, युननट आई एन एच एस कस्तुरी, मो०नां0-8683937595) की ि ांच विि गीय स्तर पर कह ां तक हो चुकी है आिेिक को आर०टी०आई०एक्ट-2005के तहत सत्य वपत िि ब दिय ि िे।
घ- यह कक िोषी सवििस नां0-406161 डब्लू, न मसुममत, रैंकएच-11, युननट आई एन एच एस कस्तुरी मो नां0-8683037505) के द्ि र फरौड़ करने पर जिस अधधक री के द्ि र न जिस ननि गीय टीम के द्ि र ि ांच विि गीय स्तर पर करि ई ि रही है उस टीम ि ि ांच अधधक री क सत्य वपत ब्यौर आिेिक को आर०टी०आई०एक्ट-2005 के तहत दिय ि िे।"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 16.02.2022 stating as under:
"For Q No (a). A copy of complaint letter from Mr. Gurudatt, Aadhar - 5976 36094911, Residence -Aladadpur, Teh -Dhanana, Distt-Gohana, Sonipat, State -Haryana dated 01 Sep 21 made against Sumit, HI, No 406161 was received to this unit on 16 Nov 21 vide IHQ MOD(N) letter NR/0703 dated 05 Nov 21 (copy enclosed).2
For Q No (b). Investigation is under progress against alleged complaint against Sumit, Rank -H 1, Service No 406161 W, Unit -INHS Kasturi. Further, information is denied under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
For Q No (c). Departmental investigation is under progress and the present status of the case is denied under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
For Q No (d). The information is denied vide Section 8(1) (h) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2022, held as under:-
"Your First Appeal has been examined. The information which is liable for disclosure and held with the public authority was provided to you by PIO, HQSNC letter of even number dated 16 Feb 22. With regard to queries of your initial RTI applications at Para 1(b) ibid, the following are submitted:-
(a) For Para 1(a). is enclosed. Copy of IHQ MoD(N) letter NR/0703 dated 05 Nov 21
(b) For Para 1(b) and (c). The investigation against your complaint has concluded that no disciplinary action is warranted against the sailor considering his exemplary service of more than three years iaw Section 79(4) of the Navy Act, 1957.
(c) For Para 1(d). The details sought relate to personal information, disclosure of which has no public interest and therefore, exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, decision of CIC in Nadeem M. Oomerbhoy v. Reserve Bank of India, Appeal No. 177/IC(A)/2006 dated 17 Aug 2006 is relevant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.3
Respondent: Capt. Devesh Khurana, CPIO along with Lt. Commr. Shilpi, Asst. CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the desired information including statement of witnesses, investigation report, etc. has not been provided to him till date. He further contested the inaction of the Respondent organization in granting fraudulent entry/ employment to the averred third party without verifying his credentials. In this regard, he sought intervention of the Commission.
The Respondent reiterated the contents of reply & FAA's order. Lt. Commr. Shilpi facilitated a detailed discussion on the issue raised by the Appellant by giving reference to Section 79(4) of the Navy Act, 1957 and further clarified that the selection of Shri Sumit was completed after proper verification of his documents; furthermore, the complaint of the Appellant has been received after completion of three years' of service by the third party /Sailor where provisions of Section 79 of Navy Act, 2957 comes into play which bars any further action against Sailor after said period.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the Respondent during the hearing, as it was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the issue flagged by the Appellant during hearing is a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act. Here, a reference may be had of a judgment of 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 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of 4 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 30.11.2017wherein 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."
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011-26181927 Date 22-12-2023 Sh. Gurudutt S/o Chatruram Niwasi Aladadpur Dhanana, Tehsil-Gohana, Dist-Sonipat, Haryana - 131304.
5