Central Information Commission
Prakash Singh vs Defence Research And Development ... on 16 February, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DRADO/A/2019/105484+
CIC/DRADO/A/2019/117799
In the matter of:
Prakash Singh
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
DRDO, RTI Cell, 314-A, B Block,
DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 15/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 19/12/2018 First appeal filed on : 27/12/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 18/01/2019 Second Appeal Filed on : 06/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 15/02/2021 Date of Decision : 15/02/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over intra VC
Respondent: Ms Anushree Tomer, representative of the CPIO and Shri Bishan Singh, both present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the certified copies of the concerned documents relating to implementation of the instructions contained in the DOP&T O.M No. 14017/38/90-Esrr(R) dated 23/05/1990, in respect of isolated Group 'A' Gazetted officers of the Admin Cadre of the DRDO, MOD by the concerned Directorates of the DRDO.1
2. Provide the certified copies of the concerned documents pertaining to the disposal of various letters sent to the Secretary, DDR&D by the General Secretary.
3. Provide certified copies of the concerned documents pertaining to the format service matters of the appellant raised through grievances dated 08/09/2017 and 11/09/2017.
4. And other related information Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information claiming exemption under Sec.24(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information has been denied to him by seeking exemption u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. During the hearing, he was asked to establish human rights violation and/or corruption so as to lift the exemption provided u/s 24 of the RTI Act. To this he only read the contents of his RTI application again and alleged that his Right of Development has been violated and there has been wrongful loss to him along with 60 other members of their Service Association who were not given the opportunity of development. He also submitted that the comments which were given in his ACR were baseless and thus there is violation of his human rights.
The representative of the CPIO submitted that DRDO is an exempt organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and a reply to this effect was given to the appellant on 19.12.2018. She also informed the Commission that the appellant was removed from service on 07.08.2020 after following the due procedure of disciplinary proceedings.
At this point, the appellant raised an objection and submitted that he was illegally and deliberately restrained from coming to the office and the charge- sheet was also not served to him. He prayed that the Commission may redress his grievances.2
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the exemption sought by the CPIO u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is in agreement with the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA and concludes that DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged. In the instant case, apart from stating that the respondent organisation has failed to implement the instructions given by the Dopt O.M No. 14017/38/90-Estt(RR) dated 23.05.1990, no specific charges of corruption with necessary evidence has been produced by the appellant. Even though he alleged that he has got certain documents to show corruption and human rights violation, however, since no such document was submitted by him before the hearing, nothing could be perused or taken on record.
It is brought to the notice of the appellant that the onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the Appellant, in the light of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in W.P(C) 83/2014 where it was held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that-
"...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately 3 supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act" Adverting to the aspect of human rights violation vis-a-vis the appellant's argument that it amounts to violation of his fundamental rights, reference is made to a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of the Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission And Anr. dated 02.02.2018, wherein it has been held as under:
"8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited.
The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".
9. The expression "Human Rights'' denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.
10. India has also enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression "Human Rights‟ is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".
11. The expression „Human Rights Violation‟ as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied] 12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that 'No violation of human rights is involved 4 in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.' '' Thus it becomes clear that the appellant's instant case cannot be considered to be a matter of violation of his human rights, as the matter is clearly a service grievance related to termination of his services which he also admitted during the hearing that his main issue is his service related grievance which should be resolved by the Commission. Under what circumstances this was done is not for the Commission to go into and the appellant is free to pursue the matter administratively with the organization.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5