Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Kumar Chhikara vs Ordnance Factory Board on 2 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/OFBKO/A/2019/112350
In the matter of:
Sanjeev Kumar Chhikara
... Appellant
VS
Public Information Officer,
Central Ordnance Depot,
Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110010
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 06/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 29/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 26/02/2019 Second Appeal dated : 11/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 01/02/2021 Date of Decision : 01/02/2021 The following were present: Appellant : Present over intra VC
Respondent: Shri S J Khusha, Material Manager & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether a General Court Martial (GCM) was convened by HQ, Delhi Area vide Convening Order dated 11/12/2017 and its Findings and Sentence was confirmed by the GOC-in-C, Western Command, in respect of the applicant. If yes, provide a copy of the confirmation order and the promulgation order.
2.Whether any observation was raised by the Commandant, COD, Delhi Cantt on the charge sheet signed on 08/12/2017 and the Offg, GOC, Delhi Area on 09/12/2018. lf so, provide copy of the observation made.
3. Provide the date on which the Charge Sheet signed by the Offg, GOC Delhi Area was put up to the Commandant COD Delhi Cantt. Whether 1 any observation was raised by the Commandant, COD Delhi Cantt. lf yes, provide copy of the said observation.
4. Provide the copy of the findings along with the recommendations/opinion of the C of I and directions of the competent authority on the C of I proceedings.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the sought for information.
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 was not provided to him. He further relied on various orders passed by the Commission to substantiate the fact that once the proceedings of Court Martial have been completed, then the relevant file notings and correspondences can be supplied to the concerned person.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 06.11.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable reply was given to the appellant on all the points except for points (j), (k) & (l) where the CPIO had denied information while stating that the information is exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act. This reply is grossly improper as the CPIO had failed to refer to any specific exemption clause enumerated u/s 8 of the RTI Act. Under the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. The CPIO in his reply had clearly failed to justify his position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention of any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific 2 clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden.
Further, the appellant is right in stating that once the disciplinary proceedings are complete, the information should have been provided to the appellant. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide complete information on points (j),
(k) & (l) of the RTI application.
The Commission relies on the order passed in the matter of Col. V.K. Shad -Vs- Indian Army(File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000617). Paras 06 & 07 of the said order are extracted below :-
"6. On the other hand, the appellant submits that the matter in hand cannot be said to be under investigation as non-recordable warning has already been given to him and no proceedings are pending at present. He also contests the claim of Lt. Col. Uniyal that the officers concerned made notings in fiduciary capacity. According to him, the notings were made in a routine course and as per several decisions of this Commission, the file notings are disclosable to the information seeker.
7. It is incontrovertible that no proceedings are pending against the appellant at present. Hence, the matter is not covered under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. It would also not be correct to say that the officers made notings in the files in fiduciary capacity. The notings were made in ordinary course and constitute official records of the units/formations concerned. In this view of the matter, the file notings are disclosable to the appellant. Even so, in view of the special attributes of the Armed Forces and their Command structure, it would not be expedient to disclose the identity and designations of the officers who made notings in the files as it may adversely affect the espirit de corps of the officer cadre. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I hereby order that the entire information requested for by the appellant, as extracted above, may be supplied to him subject to the proviso that the names and designations of the officers who made notings in the files would be obliterated in terms of section 10(1) of the RTI Act."
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to supply the desired information on points (j), (k) & (l) to the appellant in a consolidated form on payment of the requisite fee. While doing so, it would not be expedient to disclose the identity and designation of officers who made notings in the files, hence, the CPIO will be at liberty to obliterate the names and designations of such officers in terms 3 of section 10(1) of the RTI Act. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु 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
4