Central Information Commission
Vijay Singh Meena vs Army Hq on 30 December, 2023
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ARMHQ/A/2022/146187
Vijay Singh Meena .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
HQ 61 Sub Area PIN -
908661 C/o 56 APO ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21-12-2023
Date of Decision : 21-12-2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09-06-2022
CPIO replied on : 30-06-2022
First appeal filed on : 18-07-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 09-09-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23-09-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.06.2022 seeking the following information:
1. 13.07.2020 को ककस आदे श पर ऑफ टाईम पााँच बजे बाद ससविल ऑकफस खोला गया UDC मुकेश शमाा द्धारा 1
2. ससफा चार कमाचाररयों को ही क्यो बुलाया गया?
3. यूनिट के और सभी कमाचाररयों को सूचिा क्यों िही दी गई?
4. ककस आधार पर 7012 ई.एम.ई. बटासलयि में स्थायी पोसस्टिं ग जािे हे तु सहमनत प्रमाण पत्र हस्ताक्षर करिाये गये 13.07.2020 को?
5. 13.07.2020 को सभी यूनिट के िार-ठ कमाचाररयों से असहमनत पत्र पर क्यों उस्ताक्षर िही करिाये गये?
6. यूनिट के ककस कमाचारी को पररलाभ दे िे के सलये नियमों की अिहे लिा की गई? और क्यों की गई?
7. लेटर ििं. B/66237/S&D/EME Civ (C-3) (ii) ददिािंक 14 जुलाई 2020 पोसस्टिं ग आदे श यूनिट में ककतिी ददिािंक को प्राप्त हुआ?
8. 14.07.2020 को पोसस्टिं ग आदे श पर 7012 EME Bn से कब किफरमेशि आदे श जारी ककया गया सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये
9. ददिािंक 20.07.2020 और 21.07.2020 को यूनिट में कौि कौि कमाचारी अिुपसस्थत थे?
10. सजस रसजस्टर में कमाचाररयों की उपसस्थनत लगाई जाती थी उस रसजस्टर की ददिािंक 20.07. 2020 और 21.07.2020 की सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिायें
11. 21.07.2020 को ककस ककस कमाचारी को पोसस्टिं ग आउट ककया गया?
12. 21.07.2020 को T No 2585 VM/MV विजय ससिंह मीणा को क्यों पोसस्टिं ग आउट िही ककया गया?
13. 18.03.2013 से 21.07.2020 तक ककि नियमों के तहत VM/MV राकेश कुमार कुमाित को विजय ससिंह मीणा से सविास में िरर-ठ बिा रखा था?
14. ददिािंक 20.07.2020 ि 21.07.2020 को T No 2592 राकेश कुमार कुमाित अिुपसस्थत था?
15. ददिािंक 26.02.2021 से 01.03.2021 तक T No 2539 चन्दि ससिंह बबश्ठ और T No 2582 निसार मोहम्मद को क्या यनू िट से बाहर काया के सलये भेजा गया था क्या? कहााँ पर? ककस काया के सलये? और ककसके आदे श पर भेजा गया था
16. िाहि ििं. 05B092239A सजप्सी से ददिािंक 26.02.2021 से 02.03.2021 तक क्या क्या डयट ू ी ली गई वििरण उपलब्ध करिाया जाये और ककसके आदे श से?2
17. 03.03.2021 को विजय ससिंह मीणा और चेि ससिंह राठौड को 706 ज्चज में डॐ के काम के सलये भेजा गया 706 ज्िज में जािे के सलये इन्ही दोिों का चयि ककस आधार पर ककया गया और काया के सलये क्यों?
18. HQ 61 Sub Area का पत्र ििं. 2323/Att/A3 ददिािंक 24 फरिरी 2021 की सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये
19. 28 फरिरी 2021 से 10 माचा 2021 तक का उपसस्थनत प्रपत्र सजसमें सभी कमाचारी हस्ताक्षर करते थे कक सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये
20. उपसस्थनत प्रपत्र में दो बार कमाचाररयों से हस्ताक्षर करिाये जाते थे क्यो? उपसस्थनत प्रपत्र में से समय का खािा क्यों हटा ददया गया? ककस प्रकार से निसश्चत ककया जाता था कक कमाचारी ड्यट ू ी पर समय पर आ रहा है और समय पर आउट हो रहा है पण ू ा डयट ू ी की या िहीिं?
21. 21 माचा 2021 से 10 अप्रेल 2021 तक विजय ससिंह मीणा और चन्दि ससिंह बब-ठ िे क्या ड्यूटी की? और ककसके आदे श से इन्हे यूनिट से बाहर भेजा गया और ककि नियमों के तहत इि दोिों से इस समय अिधध में निजी काया करिाया गया
22. ददिािंक 11 माचा 2021 से 07 अप्रैल 2021 तक T No 2571 विजय कुमार मीणा ककस ककस ददिािंक को अिकाश या अिप ु सस्थत रहा?
23. 16.06.2021 को उपसस्थनत प्रपत्र की सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिायें
24. ददिािंक 13 जल ु ाई 2021 के Inter Office Note में 11 अप्रेल 2018 की Conducting Court of Inquiry में जो अिंग्रेजी भाशा में मेरे द्िारा जो स्टे टमेन्ट ददया गया है उसकी सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये
25. 08 जुलाई 2021 को कारण बताओ िोदटस का जिाब पत्र ददिािंक 13 जुलाई 2021 का बबन्द ू ििं. 01 से 13 का स्प-टीकरण उपलब्ध करिाये प्रत्येक बबन्द ु का जिाब पत्र ददिािंक 16.07.
2021 का?
26. ककस आदे श के तहत विजय ससिंह मीणा की सालािा िेति िद् ृ धध रोकी गई गई सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये?
27. िायब सूबेदार आर के शमाा और उिकी पत्िी द्धारा विजय ससिंह मीणा पर क्या आरोप लगाये गये है उसकी प्राथािा पत्र या सशकायत पत्र की सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये 3
28. सेिा पुसलस द्िारा विजय ससिंह मीणा के जो बयाि सलया गया था उसकी सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये ददिािंक 08.07.2021 को
29. िशा 2020 ि 2021 ि 2022 का िासमाक प्रदशाि मूलयािंकि ररपोटा की पेज ििं. 06, 07, 08 की सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिायें गत तीि िशों की
30. क्या कोई जॉच की जा रही है िायब सूबेदार आर के शमाा साहब की जााँच आदे श की सत्यावपत प्रनत उपलब्ध करिाये 61 सब एररय द्धारा The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.06.2022 stating as under:
"Extract from SRI C/o Stn HQ Cell Chikara Marg Jaipur Military Station letter No 20201/Est (Civ) dated 23 Jun 2022 regarding reply against your RTI application under ref is fwd herewith for your info and further necessary action.
Extract from SRI C/o Stn HQ Cell Chikara Marg Jaipur Military Station letter No 20201/Est (Civ) dated 23 Jun 2022
2. It is intimated that as per 'R' of CoE Station Workshop EME Jaipur was disbanded on 31 May 2019 in Second Phase. Due to disbandment old documents / files such as Est Files, Fin Files, Corres Files etc have already been deposited with EME Records, Secunderabad.
3. Consequent to the impl 'R' of CoE, 64 x def civ emp of Station Workshop EME Jaipur have also been posted out to the various units as ordered by Dte Gen of EME and AG's Br. MP-4 (Civ) (b). Now only 08 x def civ emp of Station Workshop EME Jaipur who have not yet been posted out have been physically attached with Stn HQ Cell Jaipur vide movement order No 20903/Esl (Civ) dt 17 Feb 2022 for further duties till their further re-
deployment/adjustment.
4. All the documents prior to 17 Feb 2022 except service books of def civ emp of Station Workshop EME Jaipur who have not yet been posted out have been deposited. All the derailment / attachments/ duties have been done as per order of OC SRI in consultation with HQ 61 Sub Area/ HQ Southwestern Comd.
5. Stn HQ Cell Jaipur is not able to provide the documents/ information as mentioned in the application dated 09 Jun 2022 due to deposition of all old documents/ files with EME Records, Secunderabad as well as most of Indls have already been posted out to the various units. Apart from it the documents/ 4 information as regarded by Shri Vijay Singh Meena cannot be provided to him due to security reasons as per under Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 09.09.2022, held as under:
सभी असभलेखों को दे खिे के पश्चात ् और िोडल अधधकारी से सम्बसन्धत विषय पर विचार विमशा करिे के पश्चात ् यह निश्कषा निकाला गया कक जो सूचिा अपीलकताा प्राप्त करिा चाहता है िह सच ू िा के अधधकार अधधनियम 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (ए) के तहत अपीलकताा को िही दी जा सकती क्योंकक अपीलकताा इि सूचिाओिं को प्राप्त करिे के सलए अधधकृत िही है। तथा मॉगी गई सच ू िा तत ृ ीय पक्ष से सम्बसन्धत है और मॉगी गई सच ू िा ककसी भी तरह से अपीलकताा से सम्बसन्धत िही है।
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Col. Narayan Singh, Add. Officer & rep of CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 30.06.2022, factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant.
Decision:
At the outset, it is worth noting that the Appellant has sought information on 30 points in a single RTI application. It 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 has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments 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:
5"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 employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
Further, the Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that complete and correct information was not provided to him by the Respondent. The Respondent apprised the Commission that factual position in the matter was informed to the Appellant.6
The Commission further observes that the information sought by the Appellant on some points relates to the personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional 7 access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
The Commission further observes that the information sought by the Appellant on point nos. 22, 24, 26 to 29 is related to him and in this regard a point-wise reply/information should have been given to the Appellant ab-initio.
In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to give revised reply/information on point nos. 22, 24, 26 to 29 of the RTI application to the Appellant. If the information sought is available with some other PIO then the Commission directs the Respondent to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned CPIO and collect information on above points and provide point-wise reply/information to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date: 21.12.2023 Shri. Vijay Singh Meena T No. 32585 MES G E, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302012.
8