Central Information Commission
Shri S. N. Sharma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha) - Shastra ... on 10 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00363 dated 12.3.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Complainant - Shri S. N. Sharma
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) -
Shastra Seema Bal (SSB)
Decision announced: 10.8.2009
Facts:
By an application of 29.5.07 Shri S. N. Sharma of Borghat, Assam applied to the CPIO, Force Headquarters, SSB, R. K. Puram, New Delhi seeking the following information:
"In this regard, may I request you sir to kindly arrange to provide me following information under RTI Scheme urgently for taking further action please and to save my old age service: -
(i) Copy of relieving order which should have been issued by A-1 Branch, relieving me from the post of FA (G) on being selected for the post of SFA (H).
(ii) As per FR-13, in case of permanent Government Servant, their lien may be maintained for a period of 02 years. They could be reverted to parent cadre/ Department within that period. A technical resignation from the post of FA (G) should also have been obtained from me at the time of my selection or relieving from parent cadre. Why the Department has not reverted me within stipulated period or they have not taken any undertaking from me at the time of relieving me from the post of FA (G). If above codal formalities has not been done by the parent cadre at the time of my selection then my case, which is presently dealing in A-4 Branch, FHQ, SSB. Why the present cadre has not forwarded my case to the previous cadre as per my Service Book for further action please.
(iii) When I am still born in SSB (Field Officers) Service, in which circumstances FHQ, SSB submitted the case of my conversion with other SFA (H) to SFA (M) without seeking my willingness though I had expressed verbally my unwillingness to conversion into the SFA (M) to DG, SSB at the time of second interview on 3rd August, 2005 in the presence of AD (EA-2), who may kindly clarify the position as per rules.1
(iv) Copy of noting portion in which FHQ has re-examined my case without linking my Service Book and other documents with consulting MHA and copy of particular existing rule which are not permitting SSB to revert me to my parent cadre with consequential benefits.
(v) Copy of noting portion of my first interview with Hon'ble DG, SSB on 2nd June, 2005 in which Hon'ble DG, SSB has made some observations about my reversion."+ To this he received a response dated 23.7.07 from CPIO Shri S. K. Bhagat, IG, refusing the information as follows:
"It is to inform that under section 24 of Right to Information Act, 2005 SSB is exempted from the provision of said Act except in the cases, pertaini9ng to corruption, Human Rights Violation and Life or Liberty of a person. As such, information as asked for vide your application refereed to above under this Act can not be provided."
This was followed by a letter of 16.11.07 also to the CPIO but marked as a second appeal claiming therein that Shri S. N. Sharma had been "deprived from the benefits of Fundamental Rules and Human Rights which was expoiled (sic) my service career and old age life." Upon this he received a further letter from CPIO Shri S. K. Bhagat, repeating the plea of exemption from the provisions of the RTI Act. Shri Sharma has then moved a complaint before us with the following prayer:
"I have been deprived from the benefits of Fundamental Rules and Human Rights which has spoiled my service career and old age life. Hence the points raised by me under my application dated 29.5.2007 and 16.11.2007 (copies of which may kindly be perused at Annexure -I & II respectively), are covered under Violation of Human Rights, Life and Liberty, of Persons under section 24 of Right to Information Act, 2005."
The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 10.8.09 when arrangements had been made for videoconference with NIC Dibrugarh, Assam. Because the lines were down with Dibrugarh, this was not possible, but an attempt was made to establish audio contact. Through this, we learnt that appellant Shri Sharma has not appeared at NIC Studio, Dibrugarh, as he had been informed to do through the hearing notice of 22.7.2009. On the other hand the following respondents are present at CIC Studio, New Delhi: -
2Shri A. K. Das, A.D. (Legal) Shri B. B. Shome, A.D. (Pers-III) DECISION NOTICE The initial application of 29.5.07 of appellant Shri Sharma makes no allegations of human rights violation. This allegation comes up only at the level of first appeal of 16.11.07,after he had been informed of the provisions of Sec 24 (1) which application is, however, also addressed to the CPIO. This plea is obviously a reaction to the refusal received by Shri Sharma to his original application but the allegation is with reference to the same issue, which is in fact no allegation of human rights violation but only an allegation of failure to abide by Promotion Rules in Shri Sharma's case. This is case of alleged faulty personnel management, but cannot be deemed to be an allegation of human rights violation. Therefore, the response of CPIO Shri S. K. Bhagat is within the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The complaint being without merit is hereby dismissed.
It has nevertheless been noticed that CPIO Shri S. K. Bhagat has responded to an application of 29.5.07 from Shri Sharma only on 23.7.07. Had the case fallen within the mischief of the RTI Act, the CPIO would have rendered himself liable for penalty. Shri S. K. Bhagat will note this in disposing of cases likely to come before him henceforth, in some of which he may be called upon to respond to allegations of corruption or human rights violation.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 10.8.2009 3 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 10.8.2009 4