Central Information Commission
Dr Kamal Chandra Tiwari vs Ministry Of Defence on 30 July, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/613626/SD
Kamal Chandra Tiwari .... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Defence Academy,
Kahadakwasla,
Pune-411023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/10/2017
CPIO replied on : 17/01/2018
First appeal filed on : 24/01/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 21/02/2018
Second Appeal dated : 06/03/2018
Date of Hearing : 15/07/2019
Date of Decision : 25/07/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 13 points in the context of return of his appeal dated 25.07.2017 by Registrar, NDA in terms of reasons why Defence Secretary is not perusing his representation; rule/order pertaining to disposal of representation filed by Group A officer when it is has been addressed to Defense Secretary/Head of State; copy of letter no. 15947/CVC/NDA/IDS/Pers; reasons for returning his appeal; charter of duty of Defence Secretary and other officers of Ministry of Defence, HQ IDS and NDA etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Col. Rajiv Datta, AAG (Legal) & Rep. of CPIO, National Defence Academy, Kahadakwasla, Pune present through VC.
At the outset, Commission observed that the RTI Application seeks information based on speculative queries which are largely outside the scope of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. In this context, Commission also referred to more than a dozen Appeals of the Appellant filed against various agencies under Ministry of Defence which have been heard and decided earlier, to comment on the apparent misuse of RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant under the garb of fighting corruption.
Rep. of CPIO submitted upon a query from the Commission that till date Appellant has filed more than 100 RTI Applications with NDA alone and his brother-in-law Ajinkya Reddy has also been indulging in the same practice by filing similar RTI Applications. He further submitted that Appellant was employed with NDA on Adhoc basis initially and from the year 2006 he has been brought on permanent roll and now his grievance is that his past service should be counted for his career advancement scheme, which he has been pursing through the channel of RTI Act.
At this stage, Commission took note of the fact that a number of Appeals filed by Ajinkya Reddy have also been decided earlier on identical subject matter(s) as those raised by the Appellant.
Appellant argued that he is not misusing the RTI Act and insisted on getting relief in the matter.
Decision Commission is not inclined to order any relief in the matter in view of the observations made during hearing as well as the fact that the RTI Application under reference is deemed as frivolous.
The manner in which Appellant has been channelizing his grievance over these years through the channel of RTI Act can be gauged from looking at the below mentioned gist of the nature of information sought through various RTI 2 File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/613626/SD Applications which have been heard and decided by the Commission in corresponding Appeals/Complaints:
File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/608154/SD The Appellant sought information through 14 points regarding recruitment held for the post of Principal & Vice Principal, NDA in the year 2010 and 2011.
File No. CIC/CC/A/2015/004452/SD The Appellant sought information regarding file notes, approval of officiating Commandant, records related to the counting of past service for his career advancement scheme as per a CAT order dated 19.12.2012 in his case, attested copy of his service file, rule/SOP of Part II order published at NDA.
File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000024 The Appellant sought information regarding his leave account split up details including CL/EL/Vacation leave availed from 10.07.1997 till 21.08.2006 and from 22.08.2006 till date of filing the application, copy of his service book containing leave account detail till date, reason for delay in adjusting his leave account requested vide letters dated 01.10.2007 & 17.04.2014 and officers responsible with whom it is pending, noting sheet and action taken on the said representations and recorded reason for not adjusting his leave account of Ad hoc service.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2015/002831/SD The Appellant sought information regarding appointment & continuation of Ad hoc lecturer at NDA, Khadakwasla, Pune and Indian Military Academy, Dehradun between 1997 till 2006.
File No. CIC/KY/C/2016/000026/SD The Complainant sought information through 10 points in the context of letter no. Pay Tech/Service Verification dated 07.08.2015 related with non allotment of his GPF.
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/133825/SD The Appellant sought information through 9 points in the context of a FIR filed against him by Vice Principal of NDA, Mr. Vinaydeep in terms of the procedure of filing F.I.R against a Govt. Officer of Group A; name and designation of sanctioning 3 authority who permitted filing of the FIR against him; copy of board proceedings, letters memos etc exchanged between the Ministry and NDA on the subject; copy of investigation report of competent authorities on this FIR etc. File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/133826/SD The Appellant sought information through 14 points under three different heads regarding correspondences made in the context of FIR filed against him by NDA; regarding Dr. Jagmohan Meher's visit to New Delhi for preparing CAT cases and LTC/TA/DA claim of other officers of NDA.
File No. : CIC/IARMY/A/2017/133828/SD The Appellant sought to know reasons for not forwarding his case for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for financial upgradation; name and designation of officer responsible for the same; copy of correspondences related to his CAS/MACP; government authority under which he has been denied CAS/MACP; name of officer who were maintaining his service book when it was sent to CDA, Pune for sanction of extant Vth & VIth New Pay Commission.
File No. : CIC/NDEFC/A/2017/180167/SD The Appellant sought copy of correspondences exchanged between CDA and NDA on the appointment of Advocates Sandhya P Deshpande, Adv. DP Singh & Dr. GR Sharma; copy of sanction letter of their appointment; split up details of fees paid to these advocates as they were detailed privately by NDA from the year 2014; source of payment; audit report of such sanction; file noting(s) on the subject; if payment made by cash or cheque; split up details of fees paid for cases at various Courts from year 2014.
File No. CIC/DODEF/C/2017/180576/SD The Appellant sought information through 10 points regarding action taken on his grievance submitted to CGDA on 11.01.2016 on the issue of audit of his leave account.
Similarly, following is a sample of the nature of information sought by Appellant's alleged brother-in-law Ajinkya Reddy from NDA & other defence establishments:
File No. CIC/CC/A/2016/000029/SD The Appellant sought information regarding Annual LTC availed by Dr. OP Shukla and Dr. A A Devikar from 2008 to 2015 for each block year.4
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/613626/SD File No. CIC/VS/A/2015/001617/SD The Appellant sought information through 15 points regarding pension benefits availed by Dr. OP Shukla & Dr. AA Devikar for service in Non-govt & Non- autonomous college against whom a police complaint has been filed at Marine Drive Police Station.
File No. CIC/NDEFC/A/2017/180153/SD The Appellant sought information through 9 points regarding rule under which instructional allowance is paid to Army Officers working at NDA, and copy of certain letters and correspondences on the subject alongwith classes/period allotted to Maj. Agnivesh Pandey.
File No. CIC/DODEF/C/2017/180577/SD The Complainant sought information through 10 points regarding action taken on his representation addressed to CVC dated 25.03.2016 with respect to erroneous counting of non civil service (AD HOC) of private aided college toward promotion under Career Advancement Scheme & wrong pay fixation regarding Dr Lokesh Chandra Nand, working as Associate Professor in History at NDA.
File No : CIC/CGDAC/A/2017/606781/SD The Appellant sought information in the context of Pr. CDA (SC), Pune letter no. Pay/I/I/Grievance dated 24.05.2016 regarding erroneous counting of Non Civil service and private service of Ad-hoc nature of Dr. Lokesh Chandra Nand working as Associate Professor in NDA in terms of copy of proposal and investigation report sent by NDA to CDA; action taken report of auditors etc. File No : CIC/CGDAC/A/2017/608807/SD The Appellant sought copy of claim sanction submitted by Dr. Jagmohan Meher for claiming TA/DA; copy of application submitted by Dr. Meher for the claim; certificate issued by Sinapali College, Naupada with respect to said individual; copy of relieving order submitted by Dr. Meher etc. In a nutshell, these RTI Applications are either on the subject of Appellant's career advancement scheme or against various officers of NDA and the counsels appointed by NDA. Even so, Commission ordered relief to the Appellant in most of these cases, having taken cognizance of the fact that RTI Applications are being 5 continued to be filed on the same subject matter since the year 2015 evokes questions regarding the intention of the Appellant behind filing these many RTI Applications.
It therefore appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as this where the intention of the RTI Applicant is apparent beyond reasonable doubt that it is to only pester the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to 6 File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/613626/SD employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources." (Emphasis Supplied) In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto." (Emphasis Supplied) A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
"...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still."7
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well recognized bane and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not after all absolute. Keeping this in view, Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious use of the cherished statute of RTI Act in future.
The appeal is dismissed.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काशिस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) Haro Prasad Sen Dy. Registrar 011-26106140/ [email protected] हरो सादसेन,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 8