Central Information Commission
Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Central Reserve Police Force on 30 December, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00891 dated 20.8.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Mr. Sanjay Sharma,
Respondent - Central Reserve Police Force
Facts:
By an application of 4.9.06 Shri Sanjay Sharma, Asstt. Comdt., 77 Battalion, CRPF Bokaro, applied to the CPIO, Office of DG CRPF seeking the following information:
"1. What are the reasons or rules under which I have not been promoted by the competent authority?
2. Who is responsible for the delay in my promotion because of which I am getting suffered, harassed and humiliated?
3. When would my case be considered for promotion to the next rank i.e. Dy. Commandant?
4. On what ground the similar situate officers to me like Shri Sameer Kumar Srivastava, Dy. Comdt., Shri Yatendra Nath Rai, Dy. Comdt. etc have been promoted? Is it not a violation of Fundamental Right to Right to Equality before law?
5. I sustained injuries on "Bonafide Government duty", whether the CRPF rules and Director General CRPF's Standing Orders regarding promotion are having overriding affects to the provision of Disability Act 1995 as (As per Disability Act 1995 no promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability)."
To this he received a reply from IGP Shri Meena on 9.10.06 as follows:
"As per Section 24 (1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to Security Organizations specified in the Second Schedule and CRPF figures at serial No. 10 of the Second Schedule provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and Human Rights Violations shall not be excluded under this Sub-Section. From the facts of the case mentioned in your application cited above, there appears to be no 1 violations of Human Rights as well as facts of the case do not attract ingredients to constitute the allegations of corruption. Hence, the information sought vide your application is not tenable under Right to Information Act, 2005."
Appellant then moved a complaint directly before this Commission. However, Addl. Registrar Ms Nisha Singh, Central Information Commission, through her letter No. AT/5524 of 19.1.07 advised appellant to file a first appeal before the first appellate authority, whose address was given, before moving a second appeal before this Commission. Accordingly, Shri Sanjay Sharma moved his first appeal on 8.2.07 upon which he received an order of 2.4.07 from Shri S. R. Ojha, DIG (Admn) CRPF / FAA in which Shri Ojha has held that the reply given by CPIO, CRPF is in order.
In his appeal before us the following is the prayer of appellant Shri Sanjay Sharma:
"(i) I request that CPIO and A/A be directed that they should not wrongly interpreted the objects and meaning of RTI Act, 2005 for the sake of Justice. For future they should be advised accordingly.
(ii) I request that both the CPIO and A/A be penalized under the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing the incomplete and misleading information.
(iii) I would also request you to direct DG/CRPF to take necessary action and take disciplinary action against those responsible for providing wrong, incomplete or misleading information.
(iv) I also request that the authorities who so ever misleaded (sic) me and due to their misleaded response the delay caused in such responses they must be penalized under the provision of RTI Act, 2005 for the existence of Justice and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitutions.
(v) Incomplete or misleading information reply by the CPIO Shri H. C. Meena IGP (Admn.) and repeated by the appellant authority Shri S. R. Ojha DIG (Admn) CRPF was 2 already mentioned above in point No. 6 under heading 'grounds of appeal'.
(vi) The CPIO and the A/A attempts to deny me the information with frivolous reasons and misguide is malafide.
Hence they should be penalized as per the RTI Act, 2005.
In their attempt they simply used section of the RTI Act as excuses to deny me the information and not furnished information in the sake of justice and rights guaranteed under the hierarchy."
In submitting his grounds of complaint, appellant has pleaded that the principal ground is that the information sought by him was entirely based on the violation of Human Rights. He has also submitted a copy of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Personal Disability Act, 1995.
The appeal was heard on 1.12.2008 through video conferencing. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Saharanpur Shri Sonu Sharma, Authorized representative of Appellant Shri Sanjay Sharma.
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri S.R. Ojha, Appellate Authority / DIGP (Adm) Shri Y. N. Rai, D.C. (Law) Shri Sharma cited the definition of Human Rights in the Protection of Human Rights Acts, 1993 that reads as follows:
"Human rights" means 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."
He, therefore, submitted that he has been denied the right to equality and dignity. He also quoted from the various articles of Chapter of Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India to seek and substantiate the plea that his fundamental rights have been violated.
3Shri S.R. Ojha, DIGP (Admn) submitted that the case of Shri Sharma was examined in accordance with Promotion Rules of the CRPF and a decision was taken in keeping with these rules.
The Jt. Registrar of this Commission was then asked by us to explain why, given the fact that CRPF is clearly an organization listed at Sr. No. 10 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, how the Registry has advised him to move in first appeal under that Act. Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar submitted this did not amount to a decision on the complaint but only an advice to resort to the recourse available to him by appellant Shri Sharma under the RTI Act. We have, therefore, examined the file in which this advice was sent to appellant and obtained the explanation of Shri Rajeev Gurung, who was then Data Entry Operator assisting Ms. Nisha Singh, Additional Registrar. He has submitted as follows:
"To a query from the DS (PP) in respect of Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/891, it is to submit that during the period in which the present appellant had come up in complaint to the Commission, the undersigned was working as a Data Entry Operator and was assisting Ms. Nisha Singh, the then Addl. Registrar in the registry of Hon'ble IC-T. The above mentioned complaint was put up to the then Addl. Registrar on 19.10.2007 who after examining the complaint petition advised the complainant to avail the 1st appellate level as indicated/ advised by the CPIO through his communication No. MV-1/2006 Admn. 1 dated 9.10.2006.
The above complaint petition was accordingly disposed of by the then Addl. Registrar with the above advice to the complainant.
It is further submitted that the matters like this were not processed on the file, as such no file noting to this effect exists."
It appears therefore that this decision has been taken purely on administrative grounds. However, even if this is the case, greater care should have been exercised before preferring this advice, which has led to unnecessary wastage of time. The Registry will note this observation.
4DECISION NOTICE We have examined the record and find that in his application of 4.9.06 appellant Shri Sanjay Sharma has in fact pleaded the provisions of Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 and claimed equality under the law but has no where spoken of violation of any Human Rights. However, in his first appeal, he has raised this issue and cited the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The question of applicability of Human Rights in this case has not been addressed by the CRPF.
In a number of decisions, we have held that matters of promotion and administrative matters of personnel management can in no way be construed to amount to allegations of violation of human rights, if in accordance with their own rules. Such rules can indeed be challenged and struck down if in violation of human rights or any of the rights granted by the Constitution of India. If on the other hand these rules are in violation of Persons with Disabilities Act, the matter may merit examination with the Commission set up under that Act. But for this Commission to intervene at the stage of application of such rules will be against the very basis of law, which is restricted to the sharing of information held by any public authority and the manner of its sharing.
While we would caution the CPIO, CRPF to fully examine the applications made with the plea for consideration in light of allegation of corruption or Human Rights Violation as mandated by the Act, the present case, if it is indeed an allegation of discrimination against appellant Shri Sharma on the grounds of his disability falls squarely within the "Persons with Disabilities Act 1995" in the implementation of which this Commission has no role and may be agitated before the appropriate forum, which can then look into the validity of any rule applied to appellant in this case in case he is disadvantaged.
5The appeal being unsustainable under the RTI Act is hereby dismissed. Announced in the hearing, but reserved in part for the examination of the Commission's files after which the Decision is announced in open chamber on 29.12.'08.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 30.12.2008 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 30.12.2008 6