Central Information Commission
Shahabuddin Abedin vs Ministry Of Defence on 20 December, 2022
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/DODEF/A/2021/144192
In the matter of
Shahabuddin Abedin
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Jt. General Manager,
Metal & Steel Factory,
Dept of Defence Production,
P O - Ichapur - Nawabganj,
Dist - 24, Parganas North - 743144
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 26/04/2021 CPIO replied on : 29/04/2021 First appeal filed on : 28/05/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 28/06/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 07/10/2021 Date of Hearing : 20/12/2022 Date of Decision : 20/12/2022 The following were present:
Appellant : Present over VC Respondent: Dr. R.N.Jha , JT GM , Metal & Steel Factory - Present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information in respect of Md. Sirajuddin, P.No. 105634:
1. Provide his date of joining in the factory. Also provide his date of birth as per the school certificate submitted by him.
2. Whether he had been suspended/ show caused during his service period? If so, state the reason with dates as per the service record.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in second appeal stated that he was sure the third party had a forged date of birth certificate and therefore he needs the information. The CPIO reiterated the stand taken, that what was sought was third party information which was exempt from disclosure under Sec 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and there was no public interest in granting disclosure . Besides, the application was also not signed by the applicant. Observations:
The Commission noted that both the CPIO & FAA denied the information under Sec 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, being personal information of a third party. This was rightly done as per the provisions of the RTI Act and the Commission finds no flaw in the reply given. If the appellant is trying to prove forgery by the third party he should approach the appropriate forum for the same. Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is required in the matter.
The second 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
2