Central Information Commission
R Anurajan vs Munitions India Ltd on 3 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MILTD/A/2023/122327
R Anurajan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Munitions India Ltd.
Tamil Nadu ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.09.2022 FA : 06.04.2023 SA : 15.05.2023
CPIO : 22.10.2022 FAO : 24.04.2023 Hearing : 14.11.2024
Date of Decision: 03.12.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please provide the entire details with certified copies of documental proof as listable statement with their names and designation such that the official noting for included the statement/letters against Shri. R. Anurajan forwarded to OFB Head Quarters by CFA management/the then GM Shri. B. K. Singh? OFB
(ii) Who are all the JCM-IV Level members as on 08.03.2019? Please provide the certified copies of nominations of the CFLU as JCM-IV Level member?
(iii) Please provide the certified copies of the WP of 18261/2010?Page 1 of 8
(iv) As per the Speaking Order given by OFB, it states that Shri. R. Anurajan violated Gate Discipline. Please provide the SOE report?
(v) As per the Speaking Order given by OFB, it states that Shri. R. Anurajan committed the poor performance in his duties. Please provide the reports Submitted by production sections in this regard?..." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No.2: There was no JCM IV functioning at CFA as on 08-03-2019.
Point No. 3: Copy of the same will be provided on payment of Rs.4/-(for two sheets) thro' IPO in favour of GM/CFA.
Point No.4: The details asked by the information seeker cannot be shared due to security reasons.
Point No.22: No such documents exists.
Point No.23: Question not clear.
With regard to other points in the RTI Application, it is stated that all the related documents which are being voluminous in nature and is available in DS Section of this factory, as per provisions of Section 7(9) of RTI Act 2005, you may seek the permission of the CPIO for inspection of records and take the copies required by you as per your RTI application."
3. Subsequently, the CPIO provided another reply to the Appellant on 21.02.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to your letter quoted above for providing documents, in this connection it is stated that the documents requested by you cannot be dispensed with since the documents are related to a case wherein the Disciplinary proceedings against Page 2 of 8 one of the DGS is yet to be completed. Hence these documents cannot be provided as per Section 8(1)(e),(h) & (j) of RTI 2005."
4. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.04.2023 observed as under :-
"With reference to your letter quoted above, it is stated that you have to submit your appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of RTI reply from CPIO as per RTI Act 2005. The letter of even No dated 21-02-23 was - delivered to you on 24-02-2023 and your appeal dated 06-04-2023 was dispatched on 10-04-2023 as per postal details. Hence, as per Section No 19(1) of RTI Act 2005; due to time bar, your appeal is not acceptable. Therefore, your appeal is disposed off."
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.05.2023.
6. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, D. Rajeev, JGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The Appellant relied on his written submissions stating as under:
"I humbly inform yourself that I have joined the factory as Group'C' employee on 16.08.1999. I was unnecessarily transferred to Ordnance Factory Itarsi by the authorities who were hostile towards me because I was working welfare of the common Group'C' employee in the platform of the Trade Union as a Office Bearer. Then after I had approached Chennai, CAT. The Hon'ble CAT ordered to publish the speaking order. Then after the authorities served the speaking order to the applicant, the applicant also submitted the reply to the authorities but it was rejected by the authorities.
It is pertinent to mention that this speaking order has published many baseless allegation against the applicant by the authorities.
It is pertinent to mention that this RTI application has only requested for documents in support of the allegations made in the speaking order. It is also informed Page 3 of 8 yourself that providing this documents in this application is only natural justice. But that natural justice denied by the authorities and the after conducted one court of inquiry it was mentioned in the speaking order (Ref.7) thereafter without providing the reasonable opportunities and natural justice this applicant was compulsory retirement on 30.04.2024.
In this situation this hearing is coming on 14.11.2024. I hereby submit the following facts happened in this RTI application.
1. CPIO/CFA replied in the Ref.No.3 has authorized the applicant for inspection of documents and consented to take necessary copies. By opening and placing trust in CPIO/CFA the applicant has inspected the documents and application was made to CPIO/CFA for the required documents.
2. After receiving the request of documents the CPIO/CFA stated that as per Ref.No.4 (Reply CPIO/CFA dated 21.02.2023). Documents requested by the applicant can't be dispensed with since the documents are related to a where in the Disciplinary proceedings against one of the DGSs is get to be completed. Hence these documents cannot be provided. Presently all the disciplinary proceedings have completed and also inform you that the speaking order request documents not at all related to any disciplinary proceedings.
3. The Appellate Authority replied in this reg. No.6, such that the appeal is not acceptable. Therefore the appeal is disposed off. It is pertinent to mention that the first Appellate Authority not mentioned in the reply given by the CPIO/CFA on 22.10.2022 such that "you may seek the permission of the CPIO for inspection of records and take copies required by you as per your RTI application".
4. It is informed that one of the allegation in this speaking order (Ref. No.7) such that he had been in the habit of submitting umpteen number of applications by seeking information on flimsy grounds under RTI Act 2005.
Page 4 of 8Sir, I have requested only supporting documents for the allegations made against me, but without giving the same by the authorities here are deleting the natural justice for me.
I would like to conclude herewith a requested that this Hon'ble Commission should take this judgment as a lesson to the authorities by Fine of Rs 25,000/- and giving the order for requested documents who reject natural justice and thereby set an example for Group "C" employees and other members of General Public."
7. The Respondent also relied on the arguments contained in their written submissions stating as under:
"it is submitted that the averments of the Appellant are not true since this Office had never denied information at any point of time as alleged in the Appeal. All the documents were inspected by the Appellant, and now raising such remarks that the documents were not shown have come after the appellant's afterthought. Further, the Appellant had gone beyond the inspection of documents, and had asked for various other documents, other than the information sought by him, which was denied as per the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Further, the Appellant's Appeal preferred before The First Appellate Authority, of this unit, Cordite Factory Aruvankalu (CFA), had been disposed off, due to late submission of RTI Appeal Application to the Appellate Authority, vide letter No. 1275/CG/RTI/CFA dated 24-04-2023 by the First Appellate Authority/CFA Nevertheless, the point-wise reply vis-a-vis the points as sought therein the ibid appeal is submitted for kind perusal:
Point No.1: Shri Anurajan had indulged in various unwanted activities in the factory causing unrest in the factory due to which the Management had to take severe action against him to safeguard the peace and security of the factory, and accordingly action was taken against him. As the information sought by Shri R. Anurajan was very sensitive in nature, CFA being a defence unit, which provides ammunition to the Armed forces, the letter sent to OFB was not provided due to security reasons.Page 5 of 8
Point No.2 and 3: Copies of the documents were provided to the appellant.
Point No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: As a Court of inquiry was in progress during that time, and the appellant was the prime accused in the case, so the information sought was not provided as per Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005. The case was completed in January 2024 only.
Point No. 11 and 12: As a Court of Inquiry was not completed at the time of seeking of information, the same was not provided to the appellant. The case was completed in January 2024 only.
Point No.13 and 14: As the information sought by Shri R. Anurajan was related to lady workers and the court of inquiry was in progress in respect of one of the lady worker, the Information sought by the appellant was not provided. The case was completed in January 2024 only.
Point No. 15. As a Court of inquiry was not completed at the time of seeking of information, the same was not provided to the appellant. The case was completed in January 2024 only.
xxx It is also pertinent to mention that CFA, being a defence unit, which provides ammunition to the Armed forces, the Management had to take severe action against the Appellant, so that the peace of the factory was maintained. Hence, Shri R.Anurajan was transferred to O.F Itarsi on account of his misconduct in Cordite Factory Aruvankadu, and now he has been compulsorily retired from service from O.F. Itarsi as penalty awarded for the same.
Further, it is mentioned that as the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, hence the related documents, as requested by the Appellant, could not be provided at the time of filing the RTI by the appellant. Now, the disciplinary proceeding has come to a logical ending and therefore, if the appellant wishes, the same can be provided to him.Page 6 of 8
Therefore, it is requested that the aforesaid point-wise reasons may be taken into account from the required perspective and Orders, as deemed fit, may be passed to dispose of the Appeal please. By all means, the undersigned is duty bound to honour the directives of the Hon'ble CIC accordingly."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the Appellant has sought for a multitude of information in an abstract and largely interrogative manner, not even conforming to the word limit of 500 as prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI rules, 2012. Nonetheless, the CPIO has attempted to facilitate the Appellant to the extent possible while taking into consideration the applicable exemption clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIO has also duly justified the denial of the copy of the documents at the relevant time, therefore leaving for no scope of any adverse action in the matter. However, keeping in view the prayer of the Appellant and the submissions of the CPIO agreeing to provide the copy of the documents now, the CPIO is directed to send the copy of the available and relevant documents as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 03.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Cordite Factory Aruvankadu, Unit of Munitions India Ltd, Aruvankadu, Tamilnadu - 643202
2. R Anurajan Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)