Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar Dhyani vs Ministry Of Defence on 4 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/102723
Anil Kumar Dhyani .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
RTI Cell, Addl. DG AE, G 6 D
1 Wing, Integrated Headquarter
of MoD (Army) Sena Bhawan,
Gate No 4, New Delhi - 110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2024
Date of Decision : 03.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 21.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 17.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.01.2024
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 31.07.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"All the below mentioned information's pertains to MGO, Dte Gen of EME (Civ), MGO Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army)
(a) Certified copy of MGO branch order No. 37215/55/EME Civ-3 dated 11 Jan 2002 duly signed by the then Lt Gen SJS Saighal, MGO issued on common inquiry proceedings & declaring himself Disciplinary authority in the case.
(b) Intimate me the current status of ibid MGO order as whether this order is still is in force or revoked/withdrawn by the MGO at any stage of time.
(c) Certified copy of the MGO order, if any, by which (from issuance to till date) the ibid order has been revoked/withdrawn by the MGO at any stage of time.
(d) Certified copy of the order, if any, by which in compliance to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 18 Aug 2017, MGO has ever given delegation of power/sanction/ authority etc. to Commandant, 505 ABW to act as my disciplinary authority in my case.
(e) Certified copy of the order, if any, by which on behalf of MGO (with or without the approval of MGO) his subordinate authority has given delegation of power/sanction/authority etc. to Commandant to act as my disciplinary authority in my case.
(f) Certified copy of the final orders passed by the MGO on my representations dated 6.12.2018, 1.5.2019, 5.8.2019, 2.12.2019, 31.1.2020 & 9.2.2021 filed before MGO through proper channel i.e. Commandant, 505 ABW on various issues such as challenging the illegal act of Commandant to act as my disciplinary authority, illegal appointments of IO & PO done by Commandant, asking for delegation of power, if any, given by the MGO to Commandant to act as my D.A. & illegal charge sheet dt. 18.8.2018 issued by the Commandant etc.
(g) Certified copy of concerned CCS (CC&A) Rule by which during the pendency of higher authority order his lower subordinate authority without having any delegation of power/ sanction/authority etc. & by superseding his higher authority order can act on his behalf.Page 2 of 6
2. Kindly provide me parawise reply to my above mentioned information's along with necessary certified copy of orders as desire & acknowledge receipt of this letter."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.09.2023 stating as under:
"b, c, d & e: The details sought in RTI application are of the nature of clarification. Public Authority under RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or solve problems of the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be sought/ had under Act as exists with the Public Authority.
g: The details sought in RTI application are of the nature of clarification. Public Authority under RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or solve problems of the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be sought/ had under Act as exists with the Public Authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 17.10.2023, held as under:
"AND WHEREAS, aggrieved by the response of the PIO at Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army), Shri Anil Kumar Dhyani preferred an appeal dated 14 Sep 2023, under the provisions of section 19 (1) of the said Act, stating that he has not received the information as requested vide his application dated 31 Jul 2023.
AND NOW THEREFORE, after having perused all the records and after hearing views of the nodal officer, I find that CPIO had correctly transferred the queries to PIO (RTI), 505 Army Base Wksp and provisioned information to the appellant vide RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OF-81364 dated 21 Sep 2023. I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO. However, I direct CPIO to provide a copy of RTI Cell letter A/810027/RTI/OF-81364 dated 21 Sep 2023 to the appellant once again."
In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.10.2023 stating as under:
"Para 1(a). As per established office procedure it has been stipulated that subject to the imposition of penalty and a suitable entry being made in Page 3 of 6 the appropriate record the disciplinary proceedings are clarified for retention of three years after disposal. In that matter of combined proceedings entry of Penalty Accord of "Removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment under the Government" is available in the records.
Para 2(f). (i) As per established procedure each of your representations in the instant matter have been diligently replied and duly disposed off vide the following letters:-
(a) Representation dated 06 Dec 2018 vide 505 Army Base Wksp letter No 21202/FIN/FIR/LC dt 28 Dec 2018
(b) Representation dated 01 May 2019 vide 505 Army Base Wksp letter No PF/4828/AKD/LC dt 20 May 2019.
(c) Representation dated 05 Aug 2019 vide 505 Army Base Wksp letter No PF/4828/AKD/LC dt 30 Aug 2019.
(d) Representation dated 02 Dec 2019 vide 505 Army Base Wksp letter No PF/4828/AKD/LC dt 07 Mar 2020.
(e) Representation dated 09 Feb 2021 vide 505 Army Base Wksp letter No PF/4828/AKD/LC dt 23 Feb 2021.
(f) Representation dated 31 Jan 2020 vide 505 Army Base Wksp letter No PF/4828/AKD/LC dt 22 Feb 2020 and HQ Base Gp EME letter No 21202/505/AKD/Est dt 29 Feb 2020.
(ii) Public Authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret info or solve problems of the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be sought/had under the Act as exists with Public Authority. RTI Act 2005 is not a forum for redressal of grievances on any service related matters and it is advised that appropriate forum for grievance redressal be leveraged by the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 4 of 6
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ms. Sumita Pattanayak, CPIO/HQ, Shri Sachin Dev Sally, CPIO/Army Base Workshop and Shri Amit Kumar Kashyap, Custodian, attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application from the Respondent.
Shri Sachin Dev Sally, CPIO/Army Base Workshop, submitted that point No. (a) and (f) of the RTI Application pertains to their office and the relevant information in respect of point No. (f) was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 17.10.2023. With respect to information sought in point No. (a) of the RTI Application, he handed over a copy of the relevant order dated 11.01.2002 to the Appellant during the hearing. The Appellant expressed his satisfaction over the same.
Ms. Sumita Pattanayak, CPIO/HQ, submitted that the Appellant in point No. (b) to (e) and (g) of the RIT Application is seeking clarification/opinion of the CPIO on a hypothetical situation and the same is beyond the ambit of information as per Section 2 (f) of the RIT Act.
A written submission has been received from Shri Tamojeet Biswas, CPIO, vide letter dated 14.11.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"2. Brief of the Case. The appellant Shri Anil Kumar Dhyani had filed RTI application seeking certified copy of the letters.
3. Application under RTI.
Appellant's initial RTI application dt 31 Jul 2023 related to seeking certified copy of the letters was received at this Cell on 09 Aug 2023. Case was processed with concerned agency of this Headquarters. Based upon the comments received from the agency, information with respect to query (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) were provisioned to the appellant and query (a) and (f) were transferred to 505 Army Base Wksp vide this RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OF_81364 dt 21 Sep 2023 and even No dt 25 Sep 2023 (copies enclosed).
4. First Appeal. Appellant filed First Appeal dt 14 Sep 2023 for non-receipt of information, which was received at this RTI Ceil on 26 Sep 2023. Accordingly First Appeal was transferred to First Appellate Authority (FAA) of 505 Army Base Wksp vide this RTI Cell letter No A/810027/RTI/OF_81364 (Appeal) dt 27 Sep 2023 (copy enclosed). The Appeal was also heard by the FAA of IHQ of MoD (Army) wherein FAA upheld the decision of the Page 5 of 6 CPIO and directed the CPIO to provide the disposal letter dt 21 Sep 2024 to the appellant once again, vide Speaking Order No. B/87008/AG/PM/RTI-6566 dt 16 Oct 2023 (copy enclosed). Order of the FAA was complied vide this RTI Cell letter No. A/810027/RTI/OF_81364-6566 (Appeal) dt 20 Oct 2023 (copy enclosed).
5. Notice of Hearing. Notice of hearing for Second Appeal was received at this RTI Cell office on 08 Nov 2024 and the same has been listed for hearing at 1110hrs on 22 Nov 2024.
6. Submission and Recommendation.
It is submitted that the case has appropriately been disposed and transferred to 505 Army Base Wksp by CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Army) vide letter mentioned at Para 3 & 4 above.
7. It is also intimated that copy of this submission could not be forwarded to the appellant through email as his email address is neither mentioned in his initial RTI application nor in his First Appeal/ Second Appeal"
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of the RTI Act has been given to the Appellant by the Respondent. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)