Central Information Commission
Mr.Sher Singh Rathore vs Ministry Of Defence on 2 June, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/000438
APPELLANT Shri Sher Singh Rathore
PUBLIC AUTHORITY Indian Army.
DATE OF HEARING 02.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION 02.06.2011
Facts :-
Heard today dated 02.06.2011. Appellant present. The Army is represented by Col. Rajeev Shukla and Lt. Col. Raghav.
2. The matter, in short, is that the appellant is a serving Lt. Colonel in the Army. It is his say that a Court of Inquiry was ordered by GoC-in-C, South Western Command in 2007 in respect of a number of officers for alleged irregularities in the purchase/sale of weapons of various calibers, including NSP weapons from Bhutan, and that he is an affected party therein. In this context, vide RTI application dated 29.12.2009, he had requested for copy of the recommendations and directions dated 25.09.2008 of the convening authority based on which disciplinary action was initiated against him.
3. Vide letter dated 02.02.2010, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the first Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.05.2010 had affirmed the decision of the CPIO.
4. Hence, the present appeal.
5. During the hearing, the appellant draws the Commission's attention to Rule 182 of the Army Rules, 1954, which says that proceedings of the Court of Inquiry are not admissible in evidence. It is his plea that the stand taken by the CPIO that disclosure of the requested information would prejudicially affect the Army's case is not correct in view of Rule 182. He has also drawn this Commission's attention to Army Rule 184 which defines the word 'documents'. It is his understanding that findings, opinion and recommendations of the Court of Inquiry fall within the meaning of documents stipulated in AR 184. His further submission is that he has been discriminated against in as much as while he is being proceeded against, a number of officers from Imtrat Bhutan who were similarly placed, have been excluded from the ongoing proceedings and no action has been taken against them till date.
6. On the other hand, Col. Shukla submits that based on the CoI and Summery of Evidence, the Army is contemplating GCM proceedings against the appellant as also certain other officers. The matter, thus, falls in the ambit of clause (h) of section 8(1) and, therefore, no information is disclosable to the appellant at this stage.
7. The same issue had come up before this Commission in File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001300(Lt. Genl.(Retd.) Avadhesh Kumar -Vs- Indian Army and this Commission vide decision dated 25.04.2011 had held that in a matter where GCM proceedings had been ordered or were under contemplation, such matter would be deemed to be under investigation in terms of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Para 35 thereof is reproduced below :-
"35. In para 26 of the representation extracted above, Shri Chandrashekhar has stated that based on summary of evidence, the confirming authority has already ordered trial of the petitioner by GCM. He has also stated that disclosure of the opinion and findings of CoI are likely to impede the process of prosecution. He has given detailed reasons in the above mentioned para which need not be repeated. On the other hand, the appellant's case is that CoI has been concluded and statements of witnesses have already been supplied to him but the opinion and findings of the CoI have not been provided. In other words, while the appellant is looking at the CoI proceedings on 'stand alone' basis, Shri Chandrashekhar, on the other hand, is looking at the entire disciplinary proceedings as a continnum, beginning with CoI proceedings and terminating with confirmation proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with Shri Chandrashekhar that the matter may be deemed to be under prosecution and disclosure of requested information at this stage would impede the process of prosecution. Viewed thus, the matter, in hand, is covered under clause(h) of section 8(1). Hence, we find no infirmity in the decisions of CPIO & AA in denying requested information in File Nos. 001300 & 000655 in this regard."
8. The ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies in this case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
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) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Colonel & CPIO, Headquarters South Western Command, PIN 908546, c/o 56-APO.
2. Shri Sher Singh Rathore, 14, Nemi Sagar Colony, queens Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.