Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Jayanta Borah vs Directorate General, Armed Forces ... on 18 August, 2025

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई िद      ी, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/DGAFM/C/2024/609752

Jayanta Borah                                          ....िशकायतकता /Complainant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम

The CPIO
O/o DGAFMS Ministry of Defence
A' Block, 4th & 5th Floor Defence
Offices Complex, Africa Avenue,
New Delhi-110023                                        .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                      :    01.08.2025
Date of Decision                     :    14.08.2025

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on             :    04.01.2024
CPIO replied on                      :    19.01.2024
First appeal filed on                :    10.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order    :    19.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated           :    05.03.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 04.01.2024 seeking the following information:

"The applicant is requesting for a copy of the minutes of the meeting held under the chairmanship of DGAFMS to discuss the revision of Promotion Policy of AFMS held on 05 Aug 2021 at 1500 hrs at Lt Gen DR Thapar Hall, M Block, Office of DGAFMS."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 19.01.2024 stating as under:

"(i) A meeting was held on 05 Aug 2021 with respect to revision of Promotion Policy wherein the policy with regard to Medical and Specialist officers of AMC was discussed. The meeting was attended by the following officers:-

(aa) Surg V Adm Rajat Datta, AVSM, SM, VSM, PHS - DGAFMS (ab) Lt Gen Joy Chatterjee, VSM-Comdt, AH(R&R) & Offg DGMS (Army) (ac) Air V Mshl Prashant Bhardwaj, VSM** - DGMS (Air) (ad) Surg V Adm Naveen Chawla, VSM DGMS (Navy) (ae) AVM Daljit Singh VSM-ACAS (Med) (af) Surg R Adm CS Naidu, VSM- Addl DGMS (Navy) (ag) Maj Gen R Girish - Addl DGMS (Army) (ah) Maj Gen Kavita Sahai, VSM - Addl DGAFMS (HR) (aj) Surg Cmde SS Khanuja, NM - Cmde (MS) P & M (ak) Brig MS Gill, VSM - Brig AFMS (HR) (al) Air Cmde Anjali Alam - Air Cmde MS (P) (am) Col Ashis Banerjee - Dir AFMS (Legal) (an) Col Amitabh Tewari - Dir AFMS (CRD Cell) (ao) Col SK Gupta - Dir AFMS 1B (i) & (ii) (ap) Col AK Sharma Col AFMS (HR) (aq) Lt Col Mohd Tariq) - AAG AFMS (Comp Cell)

(ii) In the said meeting views were expressed by the different officers however the revision of Promotion Policy is still under process. In the above circumstances, the personal views of individual officers cannot be disclosed at this stage in view of the provisions stipulated at Section 8 (1)

(e) & 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Moreover, the RTI application also does not disclose any larger public interest which may warrant disclosure."

3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 19.02.2024, held as under.

"1. The RTI appeal has been examined in detail and CPIO, 0/0 DGAFMS has submitted the following:-

(a) Whereas the RTI application was submitted by Col Jayanta Borah addressed by the applicant to Office of DGAFMS, New Delhi on 04 Jan 2024 and received by the concerned CPIO on 08 Jan 2024. After examining the ibid application, reply had been prepared and fwd to applicant vide this office letter No 43244/ ONLINE/ RTI/24(15)/DGAFMS/DG-1C/1X dated 19 Jan 2024.

(b) And whereas, the RTI application dated 10 Feb 2024 received by FAA on 13 Feb 2024 and again asked the clarifications of the following information:

2 (a) A meeting was held on 05 Aug 2021 with respect to revision of Promotion Policy wherein the policy with regard to Medical and Specialist officers of AMC was discussed. The meeting was attended by the following officers-

(i) Surg V Adm Rajat Datta, AVSM, SM, VSM, PHS, DGAFMS

(ii) Lt Gen Joy Chatterjee, VSM-Comdt, AH(R&R), Offg DGMS (Army)

(iii) Air V Mahi Prashant Bhardwaj, VSM**, DGMS (Air)

(iv) Surg V Adm Naveen Chawla. VSM. DGMS(Navy)

(v) AVM Daljit Singh VSM, ACAS(Med)

(vi) Surg R Adm CS Naidu, VSM. Addi DGMS (Navy)

(vii) Maj Gen R Girish, Addi DGMS(Army)

(viii) Maj Gen Kavita Sahai, VSM, Addi DGAFMS (HR)

(ix) Surg Cmde SS Khanuja, NM. Cmde (MS) P & M

(x) Brig MS Gill, VSM, Brig AFMS (HR)

(xi) Air Cmde Anjali Alam, Air Cmde MS(P)

(xii) Col Ashis Banenee, Dir AFMS (Legal)

(xiii) Col Amitabh Tewari, Dir AFMS (CRD Cell)

(xiv) Col SK Gupta, Dir AFMS 1B (i)

(xv) Col AK Sharma Col AFMS (HR) (xvi) Lt Col Mohd Tariq AAG AFMS (Comp Cell)

(b) In the said meeting views were expressed. by the different officers however the revision of ng Promotion Policy is still under process. In the above circumstances, the personal views of MS individual officers cannot be disclosed at this of stage in view of the provisions stipulated at Section 8 (1) (e) & 8 (1) (1) of the RTI Act 2005 Moreover, the RTI application also Page 3 of 7 does not DR disclose any larger public interest which may warrant disclosure.

MS at

(c) Further the applicant is a service officer ger and is free to raise his grievance, if any, as per laid down service channels.

3. The appeal dated 10 Feb 2024 submitted by Col Jayanta Borah is disposed off accordingly."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Ashish Chadha, Additional Officer (Legal) & representative of CPIO present in person.

5. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

6. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 05.03.2024 is not available on record.

7. The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant complaint and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information.

8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information as per the documents available on their record has already been provided to the Complainant as per his RTI application and as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

9. During the hearing, the Respondent has shared a copy of their written submissions with the Complainant, which was also sent to him through registered post and on his e-mail ID.

10. Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the subject-matter/policy is already challenged by the Complainant on Armed Forces Tribunal.

Decision:

11. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was wrong denial of information by the Respondent. In this regard, it was noted that factual position/information as available on record and information which is not exempted from disclosure has already been provided to the Complainant.

12. Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. 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...."

13. The Commission further observed that the Complainant has filed complaint before the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act and the Commission, at this stage, cannot direct the Respondent to provide information at the stage of adjudicating the complaint.

14. The Commission further referred to the 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; wherein their Lordships have held that "the remedy for a person Page 5 of 7 who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power under Section 18 of the Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable."

15. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no mala fide intention of obstructing the information to the Complainant, hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

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 6 of 7 Copy To:

The FAA, DG Org and Pers, O/o DGAFMS Ministry of Defence A' Block, 4th & 5th Floor Defence Offices Complex, Africa Avenue, New Delhi-110023 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)