Central Information Commission
S K Sinha vs Cabinet Secretariat on 29 May, 2020
के न्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/CABST/A/2019/104660-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/161369-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/161370-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/161371-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/161373-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160663-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160662-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160661-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160660-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160659-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160441-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160442-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160443-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160445-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160446-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160448-BJ+
CIC/CABST/A/2018/160447-BJ
Group Captain S. K. Sinha
(E-mail [email protected])
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary
Cabinet Secretariat (EA-II Section)
Room No. 1001, B-1 Wing, 10th Floor
Pt. Deendayal Ayodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2020
Date of Decision : 29.05.2020
ORDER
The following were present:
Appellant: Group Captain S K Sinha, Air Veteran alongwith Shri A K Jain, Former DG (Retd.) MES through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Joydeep Dhar, Dy. Secretary & CPIO through TC;
Page 1 of 28
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660-BJ
Date of RTI application 30.07.2018
CPIO's response 24.08.2018
Date of the First Appeal 23.09.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 30.10.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 31.01.2019
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the number of times he was denied to engage a Defence Assistant by IOs during the 2-1/2 years period of DE proceedings; reasons for repeated denial of Defence Assistant to Group Captain S K Sinha (Retd.) of ARC by First IO, Sh. K. Kshatri of Technical Wing and the second IO, V B Kotabagi of IA Wing during the 2-1/2 years period of DE proceedings and other issues thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.08.2018 stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization figured at Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, which was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 vide statutory bar of Sub- Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. Moreover, the information did not pertain to the allegation of corruption and human rights violation, therefore the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 30.10.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of the RTI application and alleged that he was denied to engage a Defence Assistant by IOs during the DE proceedings which was in violation to his right to adequate representation. Explaining the background of the matter, the Appellant submitted that he had raised the issue of corruption in the affairs of the Public Authority vide his letter of July, 2013 addressed to the JD, Air Wing wherein he had flagged the issue of corruption in the purchase division of Air Wing of ARC and criminal misappropriation of government exchequer by vested interest elements at that time resulting in extreme victimization by ARC in terms of termination of his government service, suspension, illegally serving him charge sheet, transferring him out of the department, mental torture, physical harassment, constant maligning of his prestige and reputation, not assigning him any post/ charge/ work for 3 ½ years resulting in violation of his human rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity. During the hearing, he also submitted that his services were terminated vide order dated 19.11.2014 which was revoked in June, 2015 after the intervention of CAT. However, subsequently suspension order was issued against him and Departmental Enquiry (DE) instituted by the Respondent Public Authority. However, in compliance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, the suspension order was not valid any further since it was not revoked within the statutory period of 90 days. In the meanwhile he had superannuated in the month of August, 2018. However, the Disciplinary Proceedings/ DE instituted against him were still in progress since the report prepared by the IO was tabled before the competent authority i.e., UPSC and the matter is under consideration. The Page 2 of 28 Appellant therefore prayed for disclosure of information in the interest of natural justice on the ground that it amounted to violation of his human rights since the information was required to defend his case in the DE proceedings or other judicial/ quasi-judicial forums and that the information pertained to his own disciplinary matter which would not cause any harm to the core activities of the Public Authority relating to security and intelligence related activities performed by it. The Appellant also argued that if disclosure of information was allowed, the Respondent had the remedy available to challenge the same before an appropriate judicial forum.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. During the hearing, the Respondent admitted that the termination proceedings against the Appellant were revoked being void in the year 2015. However, the DE was subsequently initiated against the Appellant for breach of security protocols which was completed by the Inquiry Officer (IO) and report sent for consultation to the UPSC for its advice on 02.11.2018 which was also known to the Appellant. However, the UPSC's advice on the matter was yet to be received. The Respondent also submitted that the Appellant's allegations of corruption in ARC and violation of his own human rights as brought out in his appeal made to the 1st Appellate Authority as well as in his 2nd appeal to the Commission were an afterthought and a ploy to circumvent the exemption granted to ARC under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Furthermore the intent of the Appellant to act as a whistleblower against alleged corruption in ARC, appeared disingenuous since the same was claimed only when he was chargesheeted for his alleged breach of security protocols. Also, ordering of suspension and departmental inquiries against delinquent officials, which are the tools available to the government to maintain discipline/ integrity among its rank and file, can by no stretch of imagination be construed as violation of their human rights. Thus, the Respondent prayed to uphold the response of the CPIO/ FAA.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/161369-BJ Date of RTI application 29.06.2018 CPIO's response 02.08.2018 Date of the First Appeal 25.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 20.09.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the CCS CCA rule number and any regulation, if any, under which Group Captain (R) of ARC was continuously denied work - charge, work assignment or any post on ARC and he was also made to do corridor posting for the past three years (July 2015 to 2018 till the date of RTI application) since the time the 4 Articles of Charge were served to him on 21 July 2015; any surprise security check carried out at ARC Palam Campus during the three year period ( 2012 to 18 Nov 2014) by JD (A)/DD (B) or any official of ARC HQ in term of para 22 page 12 of DSI of ARC, in the similar manner as it was done on 19.11.2014, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Page 3 of 28 Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.09.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, stated that the relevant provision of the CCS CCA Rules as per which he was denied work charge was not provided by the Respondent. During the hearing, he specifically referred to points 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application and stated that the disclosure of the same was crucial in order to defend his position in the DE matter. The Appellant also reiterated the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660. It was also argued that he was being mentally harassed by the Public Authority officials and that his gratuity and other dues had also not settled. He had made submissions to AS (SR) in the Cabinet Secretariat and apprised him of all these details.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. During the hearing, the Respondent admitted that the termination proceedings against the Appellant were revoked being void in the year 2015. However, the DE was subsequently initiated against the Appellant for breach of security protocols which was completed by the Inquiry Officer (IO) and report sent for consultation to the UPSC for its advice on 02.11.2018 which was also known to the Appellant. However, the UPSC's advice on the matter was yet to be received.
The Respondent also conveyed that utilization of manpower was the prerogative of the Public Authority and that it was a general principle that a certificate of charge has to be submitted so as to make the calculation of the final settlement of dues of the employee at the time of his/ her retirement.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/161370-BJ Date of RTI application 01.07.2018 CPIO's response 02.08.2018 Date of the First Appeal 25.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 20.09.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points on whether any complaint was ever lodged by officials of ARC with local police during the period June 2012 to Nov 2014 for any unauthorized entry of any outsider/ unauthorized/ Non - ARC person into ARC Palam Campus; complaint number, if any, and its date of filing with the local police; report submitted during June 2012-18 to Nov 2014 by any official of ARC Palam or ARC HQ to higher authorities of ARC with regard to entry of any outsider/ unauthorized / Non ARC person into ARC Palam Campus and issues related thereto.Page 4 of 28
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2018 stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization figured at Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, which was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 vide statutory bar of Sub- Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.09.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, stated that in his RTI application he had essentially sought the information regarding the complaint lodged by officials of ARC with local police during the period June 2012 to Nov 2014 for any unauthorized entry of any outsider/ unauthorized/ Non - ARC person into ARC Palam Campus. The Appellant also reiterated the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized since the consultation process with UPSC was yet to be completed.
On being queried by the Commission during the hearing, if he had raised these issues at the time of issuance of charge sheet or during the DE proceedings initiated against him and whether he was aware about the matter pending before the UPSC, the Appellant replied in the affirmative but stated that the issues were not addressed to his satisfaction at any stage and that the information could be disclosed at this stage since the UPSC was not a quasi judicial/ judicial body adjudicating in the matter.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/161371-BJ Date of RTI application 04.07.2018 CPIO's response 02.08.2018 Date of the First Appeal 25.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 20.09.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the name and designation of the ARC Authority which issued the order, if any, nominating an ARC official to receive the allegedly confiscated alleged mobile in a sealed packet from Sh P. Stopdan the then JD (A), ARC for its safe custody; in case the said nominating order was issued, copy of the letter issuing the order; name and address of the agency which retrieved the data from the allegedly confiscated mobile, if any, mined from the alleged mobile, etc. Page 5 of 28 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2018 stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization figured at Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, which was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 vide statutory bar of Sub- Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.09.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, stated that the information regarding the authority allowing confiscation of the mobile phone in a sealed cover was not disclosed to him. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant explained that the said issue was also raised by him in the DE proceedings and that the information ought to be disclosed to enable him to defend his case.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized since the consultation process with UPSC was yet to be completed. Nonetheless, the Appellant categorically emphasized that he desired the information sought in his RTI application to defend his position at an appropriate forum.
RTI - 5 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/161373-BJ Date of RTI application 05.07.2018 CPIO's response 02.08.2018 Date of the First Appeal 25.08.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 20.09.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points on whether it was ascertained through accredited Forensic Lab that the data retrieved from the alleged mobile was captured by the same mobile set or were these data transferred from other mobile set; if yes, the content of such report, if any, along with the date of receipt of such report at ARC from Forensic Lab; copy of such report, if any, supplied by the accredited Forensic Lab and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2018 informed that the information sought by him pertained to the intelligence and security organization figured at Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, which was exempted from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide Page 6 of 28 statutory bar of Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 of the Act subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 20.09.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, stated that the information regarding forensic lab data pertaining to the confiscated mobile phone was not disclosed by the Respondent. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the mobile phone was confiscated in accordance with the extant guidelines. The Appellant however consistently maintained that the issues raised in the RTI application were relevant to defend his matter at an appropriate forum.
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160663-BJ Date of RTI application 25.06.2018 CPIO's response 16.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points in respect of the minutes of personal hearing conducted by Shri Naveen Verma the then AS (SR) Cab Sectt. in the first week of August 2015; remarks of the then AS (SR) on his statement of Defence (SOD) dated 03.08.2015 on 04 Articles of Charge against him; copy of the note sheet vide which his SOD dated 03.08.2015 and 22.08.2015 were perused by Disciplinary Authority and the decision given thereon, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.Page 7 of 28
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, stated that the information regarding the minutes of personal hearing conducted by Shri Naveen Verma the then AS (SR) Cab Sectt; remarks of Shri Verma on his statement of Defence (SOD) dated 03.08.2015 on 04 Articles of Charge, etc were not disclosed and that the Public Authority incorrectly claimed exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that in addition to raising the issue of corruption in the purchase division of Air Wing of ARC before the JD (Air Wing) he had also raised the issue of corruption in ARC before Shri Naveen Verma the then AS (SR) Cab Sectt, but no satisfactory action was initiated at their end.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the Appellant's allegations of corruption in ARC and violation of his own human rights as brought out in his appeal made to the 1st Appellate Authority as well as in his 2nd appeal to the Commission were an afterthought and a ploy to circumvent the exemption granted to ARC under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. It was submitted that the Respondent was not aware of any communication pertaining to the charges of corruption as raised during the hearing. The Appellant consistently maintained that the information sought was critical for his defence.
RTI - 7 File No CIC/CABST/A/2018/160662-BJ Date of RTI application 24.06.2018 CPIO's response 16.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 17 points on whether he was given any opportunity before the Major Penalty Charge under CCS CCA Rule 14 was initiated against him; copy of the note sheet vide which the Disciplinary Authority had approved the Major Penalty Charge under CCS CCA Rule 14 against him and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
Page 8 of 28HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, stated that no show cause notice was issued against him prior to the imposition of major penalty and that the provisions of the CCS CCA Rules were not complied with by the Respondent Public Authority prior to imposition of major penalty against him. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings. On being queried if he had raised this matter before any judicial / administrative forum, the Appellant replied in the negative. The representative of the Appellant alleged that the Respondent was misguiding the Commission by seeking protection under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the Appellant's allegations of corruption in ARC and violation of his own human rights as brought out in his appeal made to the 1st Appellate Authority as well as in his 2nd appeal to the Commission were an afterthought and a ploy to circumvent the exemption granted to ARC under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. However, the Appellant vehemently submitted that this information was critical for him to defend his stance at an appropriate forum.
RTI - 8 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160661-BJ Date of RTI application 21.06.2018 CPIO's response 16.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 15 points in respect of the date of the order issued by the Competent Authority vide which Preliminary Enquiry was convened against him in 2015; copy of the note sheet vide which the Competent Authority had ordered to convene a Preliminary Enquiry in 2015 against him, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.Page 9 of 28
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that the preliminary inquiry regarding which information was sought by him was conducted without his knowledge and that copy of the inquiry report was also not provided by the Respondent. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings. On a query from the Commission regarding the alleged irregularity if the Appellant had approached any senior administrative authority or a judicial forum, he replied in the negative.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent further stated that being an organization dealing with sensitive security related issues, they had their own mechanism to conduct preliminary inquiry which was conducted to facilitate framing of charges against the alleged delinquent officials. The Appellant vehemently contested the submissions of the Respondent and argued that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted to frame charges but only to ascertain the facts of the case and that the Respondent was intentionally misguiding the Commission to hinder the flow of information which was critical to defend his DE proceedings. Highlighting the major flaw and the palpable prejudice by the Respondent Authority, it was argued that the information sought in the RTI application should necessarily be furnished to him to seek remedy at an appropriate forum.
RTI - 9 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160660-BJ Date of RTI application 20.06.2018 CPIO's response 16.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding the name of the Service/ CAPF to which Shri P Stopdan, the then JD (A) ARC, DG (S) belonged to; whether Sh P Stopdan was a permanent employee from ARC Cadre; whether Sh P Stopdan was serving in ARC on deputation and date of his joining ARC on deputation and other issues thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of Page 10 of 28 the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that the information pertaining to Shri P Stopdan, the then JD (A) ARC, DG (S) who was also the Inquiry Officer in his DE matter should be disclosed. During the hearing, the Appellant explained that it was his apprehension that Shri P Stopdan who was transferred to the Respondent Public Authority on deputation basis was not aware about the working of ARC and hence was not competent to conduct the inquiry in his matter. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and re- iterated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC. However, the Appellant maintained that each of the points mentioned in his RTI application were essential to defend himself at an appropriate stage.
RTI - 10 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160659-BJ Date of RTI application 18.06.2018 CPIO's response 16.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 29.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 05.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding whether the anonymous letter received against him by the then Special Secretary ARC in November 2014, given any file number from ARC/ DG (S)/ Cab Sectt.; written order issued by the then Special Secretary, ARC, to Shri P Stopdan, JD (A) ARC to conduct a visit to ARC Palam on 19.11.2014 based on the said anonymous letter; written statement recorded by Shri P Stopdan from any official of ARC Palam during his visit on 19.11.2014 etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Page 11 of 28 Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that the anonymous letters that were used against him in the disciplinary proceedings were not preserved and given any file number. It was his apprehension that this anonymous letter was engineered by the officials within the organization with malafide intent to tarnish his reputation being a decorated officer. While re- iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and re- iterated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC. However, he desired complete details to defend his bonafide at an appropriate forum.
RTI - 11 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160441-BJ Date of RTI application 04.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points on whether the approval of Competent Authority was obtained, before the suspension order was served to him vide order dated 21.07.2014; copy of the noting sheet/ order sheet from the relevant file vide which the approval of the Competent Authority was accorded for issuance of suspension order against him and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of Page 12 of 28 the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that he desired to obtain the information in order to ascertain if his suspension order was issued with the approval of the competent authority or not. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent in order to harass him and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings. He expressed doubts over the approval of the Competent Authority and suspected malafide.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC. On being queried about his alleged apprehension in respect of the query raised by him, the Appellant feigned ignorance and submitted that he would have to verify the same from his records.
RTI - 12 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160442-BJ Date of RTI application 05.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the date of receipt of Anonymous letter received by Special Secretary, ARC, during November 2014 against him with respect to the alleged misconduct of his private driver at ARC Palam; copy of the said anonymous letter against him received by Special Secretary ARC during November 2014; relevant DOPT/ CCS CCA Rule No., the Central Vigilance Commission Guideline and CVC Circular No. under which the said anonymous letter against him was processed by ARC and Cabinet Secretariat and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, Page 13 of 28 therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that he essentially desired to know the date of receipt of the anonymous letters by the Secretary, ARC and the rule position allowing the use of such letters in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent in order to harass him and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC. It was also submitted that the alleged apprehensions of the Appellant were taken into account while conducting the enquiry in the matter. Nonetheless, the Appellant and his representative emphatically desired that the said documents be provided to adjudicate the matter at a later stage.
RTI - 13 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160443-BJ Date of RTI application 07.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points regarding the CCS CCA Rule Number under which his Termination from Service with immediate effect was ordered and issued by Competent Authority on 21.11.2014; copy of noting sheet vide which Competent Authority approved Immediate Termination of his Service of, name, designation and level of the Government Authority who approved the Immediate Termination of his Service, etc. Page 14 of 28 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that contrary to the principles of natural justice, his services were arbitrarily terminated with immediate effect by the Respondent Public Authority and that he desired to obtain the copy of the CCA CCS Rules warranting such action, copy of the relevant note sheet in his matter, details of the competent authority who had allowed the immediate termination of the services, etc. During the hearing, the Appellant also submitted that his services were terminated vide order dated 19.11.2014 which was revoked in June, 2015 after the intervention of CAT. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent in order to harass him and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings. Therefore, it was felt that all the queries raised in the RTI application were critical to defend his action at an appropriate stage.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. While admitting that the order of immediate termination had been incorrectly issued due to an administrative lapse, the Respondent submitted that the same had since been revoked hence the issue was settled at this stage. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that subsequently an inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC.
RTI - 14 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160445-BJ Date of RTI application 07.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding the copy of the Forensic Report, if any, generated from the date of the mobile phone allegedly confiscated on Page 15 of 28 19.11.2014 from the driver Murugesh at ARC, Palam; copy of the covering letter vide which the alleged mobile was sent to a Government of India Laboratory for Forensic test of the data and content of the mobile allegedly confiscated on 19.11.2014 from the said driver; details of individuals (name, designation and level of officials) who allegedly confiscated the alleged mobile, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that no forensic examination was conducted of the mobile phone confiscated to initiate disciplinary action against him and that it was his apprehension that the DE instituted against him was carried out in a biased and arbitrary manner. He suspected that no Government agency was involved in the conduct of forensic examination of the Articles confiscated. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent in order to harass him and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings. It was therefore desired that all the details be furnished to him.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that subsequently an inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC.
RTI - 15 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160446-BJ Date of RTI application 08.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 15 points regarding the date when Preliminary Enquiry (PE) was convened by Competent Authority to inquire into incident dated 19.11.2014 at ARC Palam based on an anonymous complaint letter received by Special Page 16 of 28 Secretary, ARC in Nov 2014; copy of the order of Competent Authority vide which, the above mentioned Preliminary Enquiry was ordered; copy of the Terms of Reference of the above said Preliminary Enquiry ordered by the Competent Authority/ Cab. Sectt; name, designation and the level of Competent Authority who ordered to convene the above mentioned Preliminary Enquiry and other issues thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that he essentially desired to know the reasons for use of anonymous letters in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that it was his apprehension that the anonymous letters were intentionally prepared by employees of the organization in order to cause prejudice/ biasness/ arbitrariness in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent in order to harass him and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC.
RTI - 16 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160448-BJ Date of RTI application 12.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the date of approval of major penalty charge and also the framing of Four Articles of Charge under CCS, CCA Rule 14, by the Competent Authority against him which was served to him vide Cabinet Page 17 of 28 Secretariat Memorandum dated 21.07.2015; copy of the note sheet, vide which the Competent Authority approved the major penalty charge under CCS CCA Rule 14 against him and also ordered to serve the Four Articles of Charge to him; etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that the information sought essentially pertained to the date of approval of major penalty charge sheet; note sheets relating to the approval of the major penalty charge sheet; etc. He further alleged that there was a discrepancy in the preparation of preliminary report vis a vis' the charge sheet prepared since the preliminary report was allegedly prepared after 15 days from the preparation of the charge sheet which raised suspicion on the conduct of the DE proceedings. It was argued that each of the queries raised in the RTI application were critical and crucial to defend his case.
In its reply, the Respondent stated that the issues raised by the Appellant regarding illegality in conducting Preliminary Enquiry/ Department Enquiry were inherently repetitions of the submissions in other matters and essentially revolved around redressal of Appellant's personal grievance. It was argued that at the time of the conduct of departmental enquiry, all these issues had been examined and deliberated. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent further re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC.
RTI - 17 File No. CIC/CABST/A/2018/160447-BJ Date of RTI application 11.06.2018 CPIO's response 05.07.2018 Date of the First Appeal 18.07.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 23.08.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.10.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), if any, issued by ARC HQ or ARC Palam along with the date of its Page 18 of 28 issue, which existed during the period 2012-14 for regulating entry/ exit of ARC officials, Non- ARC persons, visitors and private vehicles of ARC officials in ARC Palam Campus during period 2012-14; name and designation of official who issued SOP for ARC Palam Campus, guidelines of which were enforced during period 2012-14 at ARC Palam for regulating the entry/ exit of ARC officials, visitors, private vehicles of ARC officials into ARC Palam Campus, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.07.2018 informed that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the intelligence and security organization exempted as per Sl. No. 7 of the Second Schedule, of the RTI Act, 2005 subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The Secretariat was, therefore, not under any obligation to disclose the Information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The Appellant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application and in addition to the submissions made in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 stated that Standard Operating Procedure for entry/ exit of vehicles in ARC, Palam during 2012-14 was not disclosed to him and only a copy of the SOP prevailing in the year 2015 was provided. He alleged that prima-facie there was no SOP in this regard in the Respondent Public Authority. While re-iterating the prayer made by him in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660, the Appellant submitted that the exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule was incorrectly and malafidely claimed by the Respondent in order to harass him and that the information was crucial to defend his own case in the DE proceedings.
In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA as also their written submission and stated at the outset that their organization was exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. The Respondent thereafter re-iterated the submissions made by them in Appeal No CIC/CABST/A/2018/104660 and stated that the inquiry/ investigation in Appellant's matter was conducted as per the extant guidelines and that the DE against the Appellant was conducted in accordance with the extant guidelines and was yet to be finalized in consultation with UPSC.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 20.05.2020 in all files wherein it was stated that his 17 RTIs Second Appeal have been submitted to the O/o of CIC on different dates over a period of 4 months which dealt with different matters/issues, therefore clubbing all his 17 RTI's Second Appeal in one hearing would undoubtedly result into inadequate presentation of factual background of the case and also lead to non-availability of sufficient time to submit the reasons for denial of Information by CPIO and First Appellate Authority and also the importance and the compulsion for filing the Second Appeal/complaint before the Commission. The very purpose of Second Appeal would be defeated if all 17 RTIs Second Appeal were clubbed together and that he was apprehensive about the fair delivery of Justice into this given circumstances. The Appellant therefore, submitted that a maximum of 2 RTI Second Appeal may be taken up at a time during one hearing in the interest of Natural Justice. It was further intimated that he had twice forwarded letters through speed post to the Commission with regard to change of his Residential Postal Address subsequent to re-location of his residence and requested that the new address mentioned in the written submission be noted for all future communications.
Page 19 of 28The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Appellant dated 26.05.2020 in all files wherein it was stated that he had explained to the Dy. Registrar during this telecon that due to Underlying life threatening Medical Conditions and physical limitations, he may not be in a position to continue with the Hearing for longer period of time as he starts experiencing low energy and exhaustion after sometime time while speaking due to daily dose of heavy medication due to life threatening medical problems. In view the situation described in Para 3 above, it was requested by the Appellant during the telecon that presenting the background of the cases of all 17 RTIs and going through the process (including argument and counter argument) for 17 Second Appeal together at one time would be very tiring and exhausting for him which could have an adverse effect on his medical condition and he may not be in a position to continue with the Hearing. It was further stated that these 17 Second Appeal RTIs cover approximately 180 questions and every RTI was on a different issue. Consequent to his request on the above mentioned two circumstances, the Dy. Registrar had informed him that he could represent and submit to the Commission during the said Hearing as and when he felt uncomfortable and low on energy due to his prevailing medical and physical condition at that time and request the Commission at that point of time to stop and defer the further Hearing to a subsequent date as he may not be in a position to continue with the hearing any further at that time. The Appellant thus requested that assurance given by the Dy Registrar to Commission during the said telecon and his medical & physical limitations as brought out above may kindly be noted and taken into consideration while proceeding with the hearing of the Second Appeal of RTIs on May 27, 2020. The Appellant further authorised Shri A K Jain, IDES( Retd.), Former Director General (Pers), MES to assistant him during the Hearing through Video conference on WhatsApp.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 05.05.2020 in all files wherein while explaining the background of the matter, the Respondent stated that Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, were initiated against the Appellant/ Complainant vide Cabinet Secretariat (SR) Memorandum dated 21.07.2015 for alleged violation of departmental security instructions, leading to alleged breach of security of a sensitive and secure government premises belonging to the Aviation Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'ARC'), under the Directorate General of Security, Cabinet Secretariat.
The implications of the aforesaid act by the Appellant/ Complainant are that he knowingly and consciously allowed the entry of his personal driver (i.e. a personal employee of the Appellant/ Complainant) along with a non-official vehicle into the premises of the ARC, although the said driver as well as the said vehicle were not security cleared to gain entry into the said premises. Besides, the aforesaid personal driver was also carrying a mobile phone with features, including recording facility which are banned inside the secured premises of ARC. Furthermore, the aforesaid personal driver was found to be moving around, recording pictures and videos of ARC aircrafts and other sensitive areas of the premises on his mobile phone, thus endangering security. Failure on the part of the Appellant/ Complainant to restrict the entry of the said driver to the secured premises of ARC, as well as his failure to stop the said driver from clicking/ recording pictures of ARC aircrafts/ premises puts the responsibility of this security breach squarely on the shoulders of the Appellant/ Complainant. The aforesaid disciplinary proceedings have been completed as per the procedure prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority [i.e. Hon'ble MoS (PMO)], all related documents including the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, have been submitted to the UPSC Page 20 of 28 on 02.11.2018 for their advice on the quantum of penalty admissible to the Charged Officer (i.e. the Appellant/ Complainant in this case). In the meantime, the Appellant/ Complainant had superannuated from the post of Joint Deputy Director (Logistics) in ARC on 31.08.2018, and UPSC's advice in the matter has accordingly been sought under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. UPSC's advice on the matter is yet to be received. While re-iterating the action taken on the RTI application/ First Appeal, the Respondent stated that the Appellant/ Complainant's allegations of corruption in ARC and violation of his own human rights as brought out in his appeal made to the 1st Appellate Authority as well as in his 2nd appeal to the Commission were an afterthought and a ploy to circumvent the exemption granted to ARC under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. It appears disingenuous, that the intents of the Appellant/ Complainant to act as a whistleblower against alleged corruption in ARC, were aroused only when he was chargsheeted for his alleged breach of security protocols. Also, ordering of suspension and departmental inquiries against delinquent officials, which are the tools available to the government to maintain discipline/ integrity among its rank and file, can by no stretch of imagination be construed as violation of their human rights. Thus, the Respondent prayed to uphold the response of the CPIO/ FAA. On being queried if the copy of the aforementioned written submission was provided to the Appellant through email, the Respondent stated that the same was sent to him by speed post. The Respondent however assured that the copy of the written submission would be sent to the Appellant, through email on his id [email protected].
Subsequent to the hearing, the Appellant sent another email dated 28.05.2020 wherein while enclosing a brief of verbal communications made to the Commission on commencement of hearing in the 17 matters, it was prayed to consider the same. It was further inter alia stated that the Respondent took the cover of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 all along for all the 17 RTIs despite being given ample opportunity by the Commission. He further submitted that in the interest of natural Justice, the hoax of intelligence organisation and assumed blanket protection through this Act may kindly not be allowed. While praying for the disclosure of information sought by him in all the 17 matters, the Appellant submitted that the information and documents sought through these RTIs pertained to him and are very crucial, relevant and important for his defence and it was in no way connected to any operational matter or about the functioning of the organisation. The matters were purely connected to corruption in the system and human right violations. It was further submitted that in case the representative of Cab Sec(SR) felt so strongly about their protection under the said section they could approach higher judicial authority for relief. It was also submitted that the Cab Sec(SR) had not given him either through post or email the copies of their written submission in connection with the Hearing of these 17 RTIs Second Appeal. The Appellant was also instructed to send a copy of the aforementioned submission to the Respondent on the email id [email protected].
OBSERVATIONS:
On being queried by the Commission during the hearing, if he had raised the issues highlighted in his RTI application at the time of issuance of charge sheet or during the DE proceedings initiated against him and whether he was aware about the matter pending before the UPSC, the Appellant replied in the affirmative but stated that the issues were not addressed to his satisfaction at any stage and that the information should be disclosed. On being further questioned if he had approached the CVC regarding his alleged claims of corruption in the Public Authority, the Appellant replied in the affirmative and stated that the matter was presently Page 21 of 28 being investigated by the CVC. The Commission also referred to its earlier decision on similar issues heard and adjudicated in CIC/CABST/A/2018/144169 dated 29.11.2019 wherein it was decided to uphold the denial of information by the Respondent u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and not to further intervene in the matter. On being further queried if he was aware about the aforementioned decision and if so, whether he had challenged the same before the appropriate judicial forum, the Appellant replied in the negative but argued that he intended to file a consolidated petition based on the decision pronounced in the instant matters. He was specifically questioned by the Commission regarding his alleged apprehension about the decision of the competent authority even before the matter was decided, he consistently maintained that it could go against him though no substantive evidence was produced.
The Commission at the outset referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under Page 22 of 28 law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." The Commission also observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
Page 23 of 28"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
The issue raised in the instant RTI application essentially revolved around exemption claimed by the Respondent u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying information on matters relating to the DE proceedings instituted against the Appellant. The Commission noted that the ARC, Cabinet Secretariat was exempted as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of Page 24 of 28 the RTI Act, 2005 and no substantive explanation was provided by the Appellant to establish violation of human rights or allegation of corruption in the matter. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CPIO CBI vs. CIC and Anr. W.P.(C) 11092/2017 & CM Nos.45346/2017, 45348/2017 & 2610/2018 dated 02.02.2018 which is squarely applicable to the instant matter. In the said matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the information seeker had sought information in the context of departmental proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCA CCS Rules, 1965. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under:
"8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".
9. The expression „Human Rights‟ denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.
10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression „Human Rights‟ is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".
11. The expression „Human Rights Violation‟ as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations.
12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co- ordinate bench of this Court had held that "No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc."
13. In view of the above, the impugned order directing the petitioner to disclose the information sought for by respondent no.2 cannot be sustained."
Furthermore, during the hearing it was evident that the DE proceedings were yet to be finalized in Appellant's matter and that a similar matter pertaining to the same parties was heard and decided by the Commission in CIC/CABST/A/2018/144169 dated 29.11.2019, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"7. The Commission notes that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had claimed that the respondent is exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Hence, the respondent cannot claim that ARC is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. As regards point no. 1(a) and 2(a) of the RTI application, the appellant was informed that due approval from the disciplinary authority was obtained. Further, as regards point nos. 1(b) and 2(b) of the Page 25 of 28 RTI application, the Commission notes that as per the respondent due to the on-going disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, it is not feasible to provide the copies of the noting portion. In this regard, the Commission observes that in the case of Shri Rajeev Shrivastava vs. CPIO, Directorate of Defence Estates, Western Command, Chandigarh (F.No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00610 dated 26.02.2007) the Commission had held that:
"12. ......A disciplinary proceeding against an employee of the public authority invariably assumes the characteristics of an investigation. The proceeding itself is governed by the rules specific to it. In the sense that such proceedings are investigations, these do attract the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.....
8. Further, in case nos. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007, CIC/AT/A/2007/00010 and CIC/AT/A/2007/00011 dated 10.07.2007, the Commission has held as follows:
"17. ..... the term 'investigation' used in Section 8(1)(h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of 'investigation' one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken."
9. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."
The Commission also noted that another similar matter in CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/150933 decided on 03.03.2020, the Appellant therein had stated that more than 3 years had elapsed since the matter was pending and that exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) was permissible for criminal investigations and not departmental proceedings. In the aforementioned matter the Commission had relied on its earlier decision in CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.01.2006 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"8. In examining this case, the critical point is whether the plea of continuing investigation taken by the appellate authority and the CPIO is a valid plea, which would have the support of the exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. It is to be considered whether an investigation can be said to be over just because the officer entrusted with such investigation has completed his task and submitted the report to the competent authority. This will also mean that an investigation and a decision in that investigation are two separate stages and cannot be said to constitute a continuum.
9. While in criminal law, an investigation can be said to be completed with the filing of the charge sheet in an appropriate court by an investigating agency, in cases of vigilance related enquiries, misconduct and disciplinary matters, the investigation can be said to be over only when the competent authority makes a determination about the culpability or otherwise of the person or persons investigated against. In that sense, the word investigation used in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be construed rather broadly and should include all enquiries, verification of records, assessments and so on which may be ordered in specific cases. In all such matters, the enquiry or the investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a Page 26 of 28 prima-facie determination about presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/enquiry report, from the investigation/enquiry officer.
10. There is another aspect to this matter. If for the sake of argument, it is agreed that the report of investigation in any matter can be disclosed immediately after the officer investigating the cases concludes his investigation and prepares the report which, let us assume, impeaches the conduct of a given officer. In case the competent disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the investigating officer, disclosure of the report even before a final decision by the competent authority, would be inconsequential. There shall be problem, however, if the disciplinary/appointing authority chooses to disagree with the findings of the investigating officer. Early disclosure of the investigation report in such a case, besides being against the norms of equity, would have caused irretrievable injury to the officer/person's (who would have been the subject of investigation) standing and reputation. His demoralisation would be thorough. ......
13. There is one other factor that also needs some reflection. Disclosure of an investigation/enquiry report (as demanded in this case by the appellant) even before its acceptance/rejection by a given competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressures which may hamper cool reflection on the report and compromise objectivity of decision-making.
14. In our considered view, therefore, in investigations in vigilance related cases by CVOs or by departmental officers, as well as in all cases of misconduct, misdemeanour, etc., there should be an assumption of continuing investigation till, based on the findings of the report, a decision about the presence of a prima-facie case, is reached by a competent authority. This will, thus, bar any premature disclosure, including disclosure of the report prepared by the investigating officer, as in this case."
Moreover, during the hearing it was admitted by the Appellant that the advice of the competent authority was pending on the DE and that it was merely his apprehension that investigation/ inquiry was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 wherein it was held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."Page 27 of 28
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited in the previous paragraphs, it is evident that the issues raised by the Appellant in all these RTI applications were pre-mature and arose out of mere apprehension when the disciplinary proceedings in the matter were yet to be concluded. Therefore, considering the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(The order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) (बिमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त( Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] निनांक / Date: 29.05.2020 Copy to:
1. The Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi - 110004 Page 28 of 28