Central Information Commission
Mrk Saravanan vs Ministry Of Defence on 3 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus New Delhi110067
Tel: +911126106140/26179548
File No.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000776/SD
CIC/CC/A/2014/000947 /SD
Date of Decision: 03/06/2016
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : K. Saravanan
16, Old Ration Shop Street,
Edamalaipatti Pudur,
Tiruchirapalli620012
Respondent : 1)Director/DS & CPIO
Ordnance Factory Board
10 A, S.K. Bose Road,
Kolkata700001
2)CPIO
Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project,
Ministry of Defence
Tiruchirappalli620025
RTI application : 14/03/2014, 09/06/2014
filed on
PIO replied on : 04/04/2014, 05/07/2014
First appeal filed : 17/04/2014, 09/07/2014
on
First Appellate : 16/06/2014, 08/08/2014
Authority order
Second Appeal dated : 30/07/2014, 25/09/2014
Information Commissioner : Shri Divya
Prakash Sinha
Information sought:
CIC/CC/A/2014/000776/SD Appellant sought the following information:
1. Appellant referred his Representation dated 07/08/2011 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''CVC directives on ''Protection of Informers and Public Disclosure Act/ Whistle Blowers Resolution.'' He wants the information to be furnished on the subject matter:
a) Whether any action was taken on his representation dated 07/08/2011, if so provide details of the same as well as copy of the Inquiry Report.1
b) He also wants photocopy of the Representation dated 07/08/2011 along with its enclosures bearing Office Diary No. And seal of OFB as well as initials/remarks of CVO (OFB). The same is needed for submission in Madras High Court.
2. Appellant referred his Representation dated 09/11/2011 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''Cheating, Forgery & Criminal Conspiracy''. He wants the information to be furnished on the subject matter:
a) He wants copy of the Inquiry Report related to his Representation dated 09/11/2011 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''Cheating, Forgery & Criminal Conspiracy''.
b) He also wants photocopy of the Representation dated 09/11/2011 along with its enclosures bearing Office Diary No. and seal of OFB as well as initials/remarks of CVO (OFB). The same is needed for submission in Madras High Court.
3. Appellant referred his Representation dated 30/01/2012 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''Narco Test/Victimisation for exposing corruption''. He wants the information to be furnished on the subject matter:
a) He wants copy of the Inquiry Report related to his Representation dated 30/01/2012 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''Narco Test/Victimisation for exposing corruption.''
b) He also wants photocopy of the Representation dated 30/01/2012 along with its enclosures bearing Office Diary No. and seal of OFB as well as initials/remarks of CVO (OFB). The same is needed for submission in Madras High Court.
4. Appellant referred his Representation dated 27/12/2007 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''Victimisation of Whistle Blower.'' He wants the information to be furnished on the subject matter:
a) He wants copy of the Inquiry Report related to his Representation dated 27/12/2007 addressed to CVO/OFB on the subject ''Victimisation of Whistle Blower.''
b) He also wants photocopy of the Representation dated 27/12/2007 along with its enclosures bearing Office Diary No. and seal of OFB as well as initials/remarks of CVO (OFB). The same is needed for submission in Madras High Court.
5. Appellant referred to CBI Investigation Report (Ref: CBI, Anticorruption Branch, Chennai RC (A) of 2008 submitted by SP1/CBIACB, Chennai to CVO/OFB on 10/11/2009. He wants the information to be furnished on the subject matter:
a) The CBI had recommended departmental action against General Manager, Additional General Manager and Joint General Managers of the HAPP. Whether action was taken 2 against any of the Group A Officers indicted by the CBI.
If yes, furnish details on action taken against Group A Officers.
6. The CVO/OFB had rejected the CBI Investigation Report (Ref: CBI, Anticorruption Branch, Chennai RC 37(A) of 2008 vide his Vigilance Report/dissenting Note dated 13.05.2011. He wants photocopy of the same and copy of the letter forwarded to Vigilance/Ministry of defence.
7. He also wants complete details and tenure of Chief Vigilance Officers of OFB who had held the post for the period January 2006 to January 2014.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000947 /SD Appellant sought the following information:
1. Complete details of total number of Officers and Employees of HAPP who have been given permission by the HAPP Management to bring personal Mobile phone inside the HAPP Factory. He also wants photocopies of the permission letters of the same.
2. He has referred Employees Provident Fund Organisation/Trichy letter No. B4/TN/76172/SROTRO TRY/2014 dated 31/01/2014 directing the General Manager/HAPP to appear before the APFC/EPFO, Trichy on 13/02/2014 and submit relevant documents. He wants the details of total number of official letters received and sent by HAPP Management from EPFO/Trichy for the period 01/01/2014 to 15/06/2014.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent:
CIC/CC/A/2014/000776/SD S.K. De, Dir & CPIO and Santosh Shah, Dir(Vig), Ordnance Factory Board Kolkata present through VC.
Appellant submitted that he has received reply to his RTI application in which letter from Vigilance Department, Ordnance Factory Board has been attached. He has been given partial reply in response to his RTI application.
CPIO submitted that they provided available information and claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(g) & (j) in respect of 3 remaining information. Information asked on sl. no.2 is regarding appellant's representation dated 30.1.2012 which has not been received by the CPIO.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000947 /SD Tikaram, Addl. GM & CPIO, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, Tiruchirappalli present through VC.
Appellant mentioned that no information has been provided to him as the same is exempt under Section under 8(1)(a) in respect of point no.1. In respect of point no.2 CPIO mentioned that the information sought is subject matter of a case sub judice in Delhi High Court, hence the same has not been provided.
Decision CIC/CC/A/2014/000776/SD Commission observes that exemption under Section 8(1)(g) & (j) has not been appropriately applied by the CPIO, specially when the appellant is seeking action taken on his own representation. CPIO is directed to provide copies of document sought by the appellant in 1(b), 2(b), 4(b) and 6(a) within 15 days of receipt of this order.
CIC/CC/A/2014/000947 /SD Commission is not satisfied with the exemption claimed by the CPIO to deny information to the appellant. CPIO is directed to provide (i) name of Officers and Employees who have been given permission to bring personal mobile phones inside the HAPP factory and information sought in para 2(i) & (ii) of the RTI application within 15 days of receipt of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Raghubir Singh) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4 5