Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shri Dharmpal Sudhakar Gawai vs Military Engineer Services on 30 December, 2023

                            केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/MESER/C/2022/643618

Dharmpal Sudhakar Gawai                               ....शिकायतकताग /Complainant


                                        VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO,
HQ Chief Engineer, Military
Engineering Services, Southern
Command, Pune - 411001                                 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                     :    21-12-2023
Date of Decision                    :    21-12-2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on            :    29-05-2022
CPIO replied on                     :    09-06-2022
First appeal filed on               :    17-06-2022
First Appellate Authority's order   :    11-07-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    08-08-2022


Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2022 seeking the following information:
1
"100 POINTS RESERVATION ROSTER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED MAINTAIN BY ESTABLISHMENTS
1. My application dated 02 Dec 2019 and dated 10 Oct 2019 and dated 31 Jul 2020 fwd to Liaison Officer Special Reservation Cell Room No 174 E in Cs Branch New Delhi

2. Sir I am working in Military Engineers Services AGE IP Fy Ambajhari office as a JAA I joined this office on 24 Jan 2015 from Naval Pay Office Mumbai compassionate ground on medical base I am physically handicapped with Left leg 51 percent affected Presently I am transfer on LTO to HQ CE AF Nagpur I joined this office on 30 Mar 2022

3. As per DOPT OM No 36035 7 95 Estt SCT dt 18th Feb 1997 OM No 36035 3 2004 Estt Res dt 29th Dec 2005 and upon which HQ DG Pers E in C s Branch New Delhi letter No B 20113 Roster 37 E1C 1 dt 12 Sep 2018 also instructed to Comd HQ CE SC Pune to maintain 100 points Reservation Roster for physically handicapped to avoid any legal complication at a later stage In view of above Govt Orders my seniority may please be included in 100 Points Reservation roster of physically handicapped under Physically Handicapped quota Since i have physically reported in the MES wef 24 Jan 2015 by carry over seniority since 2015 to till date

4. It is requested that 100-point Reservation Roster for Physically Handicapped maintained records and certified to Liaison Officers as per DOPT OM No 43011 153 2010 Estt Res dated 4th Jan 2013 copy encl A certified copy of the same may please be provided to me for information that at present my seniority where is fixed by your HQ to prospects for future promotion."

The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the complainant on 09.06.2022 stating as under:

"Para 1 to 2:
No specific information has been asked by the indl.
Para - 3 & 4:
Specific year for which 100 Point Reservation Roaster is required has not been mentioned. However, a copy of relevant pages of 100 Point 2 Reservation Roster for Physically handicapped for last DPC held in the year 2020 is encl."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 11.07.2022, held as under:

"Whereas Shri Dharmpal Sudhakar Gawai raised certain grievances wrt denied of promotion to next post, which do not full under ambit of RTI Act, for which Shri Dharmpal Sudhakar Gawai was advised to utilise the grievances redressal mechanism. It was explained by CPIO that 100 Point Roster for reservation of PwD has been superimposed on 200 Point Roster of reservation and relevant portion has been fwd to applicant. Shri Dharmpal Sudhakar Gawai stated that document enclosed with RTI reply are only photocopies and not authenticated once.
In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. With direction to CPIO (Pers). HQ CESC to fwd authentical copies of documents asked for as provided for under relevant provisions of RTI ACT 2005, within 30 days of received of this order."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Complainant: Not Present.
Respondent: Col. Manoj Pant, CPIO and Shri B M Patel, Director (DPC) present through Video-Conference.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 09.06.2022 and 19.07.2022, point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Complainant where 100 points roster was provided to him.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non- satisfaction w.r.t the information received from the Respondent. In this regard, 3 it was noteworthy that an appropriate reply/information by the Respondent has been provided vide letters dated 09.06.2022 and 19.07.2022 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.

The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाणणत सत्यापित प्रनत) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 011- 26181927 Date 4 Shri Dharmpal Sudhakar Gawai Qtr No. 05/24/02 Ordinance Factory Estate Ambajhari, Nagpur, Maharashtra - 440021.

5