Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Dhyani vs Indian Army on 16 October, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/173732/SD
CIC/IARMY/A/2017/165213/SD
CIC/IARMY/C/2017/165212/SD
Date of Hearing: 31/07/2018
Date of Interim Decision: 10/08/2018
Date of Final Decision: 15/10/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal(s) & Complaint:
Appellant : Anil Kumar Dhyani
Respondent(s) : CPIO,
505 Army Base Workshop,
Pin-900106,
C/o 56 APO
CPIO,
Headquarters
Base Wksp Gp EME,
Pin-900468,
C/o 56 APO
RTI application filed on : 25/07/2017 10/05/2017 10/05/2017
CPIO replied on : No reply 14/06/2017 14/06/2017
First appeal filed on : 01/09/2017 19/06/2017 19/06/2017
First Appellate Authority : No order No order No order
order
Second Appeal dated : 23/10/2017 10/09/2017 11/09/2017
1
Information sought:
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/173732/SD The Appellant sought the certified copies of the letter of 505 Army Base Workshop under which certain files of HQs BWG along with their original volumes and original file Noting sheets maintained in their office since March 2001 till date, copies of all the letters of HQs BWG under which all such files were forwarded to 505 Army Base Workshop, whether these files are still in possession of 505 Army Base Workshop or the same has been returned back to HQs BWG, in case of return, the proof of return and information as to how many times the said files were demanded and returned back by 505 ABW to HQ BWG along with certified copies of the order of higher authorities in compliance of which the said files were forwarded to 505 ABW by HQs BWG.
File No. : CIC/IARMY/C/2017/165212/SD + CIC/IARMY/A/2017/165213/SD The Appellant sought copies of various letters and para-wise comments/recommendations of HQs BWG on his appeals dated 26.03.2009 and 05.03.2013 filed before appellate authority against his termination letter dated 31.12.2008 and 16.01.2013 passed by MGO and on his OA No. 171/2010 dated 12.01.2010 and 529/2014 dated 07.02.2014 filed before CAT, Delhi against his termination orders and inspection of certain files.
Grounds for the Second Appeal and Complaint:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 31.07.2018: The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Maj. Megha Gupta, Rep. of CPIO and Devender Kumar, LDC, 505 Army Base Workshop, Pin-900106, C/o 56 APO present in person.
Commission has clubbed the three cases for decision as the relief sought is based on the same request for information. The case registered as Complaint is also being treated as Second Appeal based on the nature of relief sought.2
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/173732/SD CIC/IARMY/A/2017/165213/SD CIC/IARMY/C/2017/165212/SD Maj. Megha Gupta, CPIO submitted at the outset that she is representing Respondent No.2 as well for the hearing as the concerned CPIO is unable to attend the hearing due to certain unforeseen circumstances.
Appellant stated that no substantive information has been received by him till date.
The written submission of Respondent No.2 received before hearing includes a revised status on each para of the RTI Application wherein the available records has been indicated while for some paras information is said to be available with Respondent No.1's office. Respondent No.2 provided a reply to the Appellant based on similar lines vide letter dated 14.06.2017.
During the hearing upon a brief deliberation over Appellant's contentions and the fact that an elaborate set of records has been sought which is said to be available in parts with both Respondent offices, the option of offering a consolidated inspection of available records from both offices to the Appellant was considered. Both Appellant and representative of both the Respondent offices agreed to the offer of inspection.
Interim Decision on 10.08.2018 Commission observes that while no reply of Respondent No.1 is available on record against the RTI Application dated 25.07.2017, Respondent No.2 provided an incomplete reply to the Appellant. It was incumbent on Respondent No.2 to have transferred the RTI Application dated 10.05.2017 to the probable holder of information i.e Respondent No.1 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act instead of asking the Appellant to approach that office directly. Even so, Appellant was compelled to file a fresh RTI Application with Respondent No.1 on the same issue, no reply has been prima-facie provided to the Appellant. The conduct of both the Respondents amount to a gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
To obliterate any further inconvenience caused to the Appellant in the advent of procuring information from both the Respondents, Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondents to appear before the bench on 31.08.2018 at 12.00 pm with all available records pertaining to the information sought in the RTI 3 Application for allowing the opportunity of inspection to the Appellant. Appellant is also advised to be present on the said date and time to identify the requisite documents. Respondents will provide due assistance during the course of the inspection to the Appellant and prepare an inspection report enumerating the details of the records brought with them and the records identified by the Appellant.
Maj. Megha Gupta, CPIO representing Respondent No.1 is also directed to bring along her written submissions explaining as to why show cause proceedings should not be initiated against her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for prima-facie not replying on the RTI Application dated 25.07.2017 within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. In case a reply was provided on the said RTI Application, CPIO is directed to bring along copy of the same with its proof of despatch alongwith any other supporting documents as may be deemed necessary to substantiate her case.
The appeal(s) and complaint are reserved for final order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 31.08.2018:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent (1): Maj. Megha Gupta, OIC (Legal Cell) & Rep. of CPIO, 505 Army Base Workshop, Pin-900106, C/o 56 APO present in person.
Respondent (2): Bidyot Panging, Superintending Engineer & Rep. of CPIO, HQ BWG, Pin-900468, C/o 56 APO present in person.
At the outset, Maj. Megha Gupta, OIC (Legal Cell) tendered her apology for causing inadvertent misrepresentation before the Commission regarding herself being the CPIO when infact she was only representing the CPIO Col. Basant Rathee. Nonetheless, she submitted a copy of the explanation of the said CPIO against the show cause notice. It is submitted therein that the RTI Application dated 25.07.2017 was received on 29.07.2017 and appropriate reply was provided to the Appellant on 25.08.2017 and that the First Appeal was responded to on 03.11.2017. Copy of despatch proof for both the replies has also been enclosed with the submissions.4
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/173732/SD CIC/IARMY/A/2017/165213/SD CIC/IARMY/C/2017/165212/SD As regards the inspection offered to the Appellant before the Deputy Registrar attached with this bench, Appellant has largely expressed his dissatisfaction in the inspection report with respect to the files/records that were said to be not available/not traceable by the Respondents while Respondent No.2 has also agreed to make efforts of searching some files again for providing further inspection to the Appellant. During the pendency of the decision in the matter, Appellant also sent an email on 01.09.2018 wherein he has reiterated his points of concern with the inspection as well as typed out the requisite documents, whose copies are sought by him upon inspection.
FINAL DECISION In light of the submissions of Respondent No.1, Commission drops the show cause proceedings initiated vide Interim Decision.
Commission directs the Respondent(s) to carefully peruse the (enclosed) list of documents identified by the Appellant and provide certified copies of the same to him free of cost.
Further, Commission directs the Respondent(s) to search for the files/documents rendered as unavailable or as alleged by the Appellant to have been deliberately not shown during inspection. Respondent(s) are directed to consolidate all such additional records at one place in office of Respondent No.1 or 2 and offer another opportunity of inspection to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time intimated to him telephonically and in writing. For easing out the exercise of initiating separate correspondences by the Respondents, Commission is directing Respondent No.1 to adequately liaise with Respondent No.2 on the subject and correspond with the Appellant on behalf of both the offices.
Upon providing the additional inspection, an inspection report shall be prepared by Respondent 1 on behalf of both offices countersigned by the Appellant and certified copies of identified documents will be provided free of cost.
In the event, part of the records remain untraceable, both Respondents are directed to file their respective affidavits stating that available records sought 5 in the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant and they should appropriately enlist in the affidavit the records which are deemed as untraceable as well as not available. The said affidavit shall be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.
The aforesaid directions should be complied in a composite manner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
A compliance report on the aforesaid directions i.e the direction to provide copies of documents identified during the inspection on 31.08.2018; direction to search the unavailable/untraceable records and providing additional inspection as well as copies thereof should be sent to the Commission by the Respondents.
The appeal(s) and complaint are disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Encl: Copy of Appellant's email of 01.09.2018 with list of identified documents.6