Central Information Commission
Mr.Narain Singh vs Ministry Of Defence on 17 October, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001363
Appellant : Narain Singh
Respondent : AGs Branch / Indian Army
Date of hearing : 17.10. 2012
Date of decision : 17.10. 2012
FACTS
Heard today dated 17.10.2012. Appellant present along with his counsel Shri Sunil Choudhury. The public authority is represented by Col. B. S. Pundir. The parties are heard and the records perused.
2. The matter, in short, is that the appellant is an ex-Subedar of the Army. He retired way back in 1996. Vide RTI application dated 30.7.2010, he had sought the following information:-
"1. Who was the Honorary Commission during the period 15th August 1995 till 26th January 1996?
2. What was the required qualification/s and criteria for appointment of the Honorary Commission during the said period and as on date?
3. Whether my qualifications and rank at the time of my retirement was not appropriate / or suitable / eligible as per the requirements for appointment of Honorary Commission?"
3. This was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 28.10.2010. Para 02 of the said letter is extracted below:-
"(a) Reply to Query 1. The information sought by you is personal information relating to other person and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) Reply to Query 2. All Subs in the last year of colour service are considered for the grant of honorary commission and accordingly your case for grant of honorary commission was processed with IHQ of MoD (Army) on the occasion of Republic Day 1996 (First chance) and Independence Day 1996 (Second chance). However, you could not make up in the merit, which is drawn at IHQ of MoD (Army).
(c ) Reply to Query 3. Already covered in para 2 above."
4. On appeal, the AA vide order dated 5.2.2011, had ordered disclosure of some additional information to the appellant. Para 04 of his order is extracted below:-
"(a) Query No. 1. List of JCOs who were granted Hony Commission on Independence Day 15 Aug 1995 and on Republic Day 16 Jan 1996 is enclosed as Appx 'A'.
(b) Query No. 2 & 3. Case for grant of Hony Commission in r/o Ex Sub Narain Singh was processed to as per existing policy and he could not come up in merit drawn at IHQ of MoD (Army). An eligibility criterion for consideration for grant of Hony Commission is enclosed as per Appx 'B'"
5. Aggrieved with the above orders, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. During the hearing, Adv. Choudhury submits that in addition to the information sought in the RTI application, the appellant also requires the following information:-
(i) Copy of the AEC news letters in which the lists of officers who were awarded Honorary Commissions on 15.8.1995 and 26.1.1996, were published;
(ii) Gradings awarded to the appellant in the last five years of his ACRs; &
(iii) Marks awarded to the appellant at the time of consideration of his case for the Honorary Commission.
7. From the above narration, it is clear that the information requested for by the appellant in paras 2 & 3 of the RTI application was provided to him by the CPIO. The CPIO, however, had denied information on para 01. This decision was set-aside by the AA and the list of JCOs who were granted Honorary Commission was ordered to be supplied to the appellant. It would, thus, appear that information on all the three paras has already been supplied to the appellant and he has nothing to complain about.
8. Coming to the additional information requested for by the appellant, suffice to say that information requested for in paras 6 (i) is disclosable to the appellant, if available in the official records. The same hold goods for information requested for in para 6 (ii) in terms of this Commission's decision dated 9.3.2010 in File No. CIC/LS/A/2009/001062 (Yudhvir Singh vs. Army Educational Corps Records). However, as regards para 6 (iii), Col. B. S. Pundir has contended that the case of the appellant was considered for grant of Honorary Commission alongwith that of many others by a High Powered Board and the selections were made in a fair and transparent manner but the appellant did not make the grade. He strongly objects to the disclosure of the marks awarded to the appellant not only on the ground of secrecy but also for practical considerations. It is his contention that about 50,000 soldiers, in various ranks, retire from the Army every year and if the Army authorities were called upon to disclose this kind of information, it will open up floodgates and disproportionately divert its resources.
9. The contention of Col. Pundir is compelling. Even so, the Commission offered inspection of the relevant records to the appellant which Col. Pundir had brought alongwith him but the appellant did not accept this offer. Hence, the appellant's contention is rejected.
10. In short, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide information on paras 6 (i) & (ii) to the appellant if available in the official records in 04 weeks time. No information is required to be disclosed on para 6 (iii).
11. This order may be complied with in 05 weeks time.
Sd/-
(M. L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K L Das) Dy. Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO RTI Cell, ADG AE, G-6, D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate No. 4, IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi - 110011
2. The Lt. Col.
Addl. Dte Gen of Pub Info, Dte Gen of Mil Int, B-30, South Block, IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi- 110011
3. The Lt Col Army Educational Corps Records, PIN 908777, C/O 56 APO
4. Shri Narain Singh Lohatki Village, Dhaula, Sohna, Gurgaon, Haryana