Central Information Commission
G Krishna Moorthy vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 23 May, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/ Second Appeal No.CIC/MHOME/A/2018/101295
G Krishna Moorthy ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Police-II Division, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.04.2017 FA : 11.05.2017 SA : 08.12.2017
CPIO : 05.05.2017 FAO : 02.06.2017 Hearing : 23.05.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on four points pertaining to fixation of seniority of Law Officers of BSF, including, inter-alia, (i) copy of letter/circular/note sheet regrading reference, if any, received from Page 1 of 5 MHA/MOL&J/BSF seeking advice/clarification on the issue of fixation of seniority of Law Officers of BSF or on any issue connected therewith, and (ii) if so, details of the said reference including, the date of receipt, name of the Dept. from which the file was received, names of the dealing officers and the issue raised therein.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that he had specifically sought information from the CPIO, MHA, however, the CPIO deliberately transferred his RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, BSF to evade suply of requisite information to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri G Krishna Moorthy attended the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent Shri Vinod Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO, Police-II Div., MHA, New Delhi and Shri Ajai Singh, DIG, Border Security Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the CPIO's reply to his RTI application who had transferred his RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, BSF, New Delhi. He contended that he had sought information regarding fixation of Seniority of Law Officers of BSF from MHA as the matter was referred to the Ministry. Hence, the information should be available with the respondent authority and be provided to him. He stated that his seniority Page 2 of 5 had not been fixed as per the Recruitment Rules 1999 applicable to BSF Law Officers.
5. The respondent (MHA) submitted that the FAA vide order dated 02.06.2017 had informed the appellant that proposals are received in the Ministry from CAPFs in a single file system which are initiated by the CAPFs concerned. After considering the proposals, the files are returned to the concerned Dept. after approving the proposal or with observations. Thus, since their files are not retained by the Ministry, no information is available with the latter. Hence, no information could have been provided to the appellant. Nonetheless, the CPIO vide reply dated 05.05.2017 had transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to DIG (Pers.) and CPIO, BSF, New Delhi to furnish a reply in this regard to the appellant directly.
6. The respondent (BSF) submitted that BSF has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. Nonetheless, he assured that if the appellant submits a representation through proper channel regarding his grievance of fixation of seniority, best efforts will be made to address his grievance.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, finds that an appropriate reply has been provided to the Page 3 of 5 appellant by the CPIO, MHA. The Commission further observes that under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, BSF has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to BSF except when the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CPIO, CBI Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11092/2017 & CM Nos.45346/2017, 45348/2017 & 2610/2018, decision dated 02.02.2018] has held as under:
"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.
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."
8. In view of the above, the Commission observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 510. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 23.05.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Ministry of Home Affairs, Police-II Division, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs Police-II Division, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.
3. Shri G Krishna Moorthy Page 5 of 5