Central Information Commission
Mrmukesh Kumar Sharma vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 3 August, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2015/001496/SB
Dated 03.08.2016
Appellant : Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma,
Assistant Commandant(GD),
No. 88010074,
32nd Bn. I.T.B.P., Maharajpur,
District Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General,
Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (MHA),
Block2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi110 003.
Date of Hearing : 03.08.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.04.2015
CPIO's reply : 06.05.2015
First Appeal filed on : 15.05.2015
FAA's order : 25.05.2015
Second appeal filed on : 09.06.2015
1
ORDER
1. Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma filed an application dated 21.11.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General, Indo Tibetan Border Force (ITBP), New Delhi seeking attested photo copies of (1) Meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted for non promotional financial upgradation of Assistant Commandant(GD) to the grade pay of Rs.6600/ in the year 2008 and (2) DPC conducted for promotional of Assistant Commandant (GD) to Dy. Commandant (GD) in 2010.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on 09.06.2015 on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information on the grounds that the I.T.B.P. is an exempted organization under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 and that the First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to provide the information sought by him as the same pertains to his service record only and is not going to harm national security or departmental security. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Mukesh Kumar was not present despite notice. The respondent by way of his written submissions dated 27.07.2016 had sought exemption from personal appearance.
4. The respondent vide his written submission, submitted that as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, ITBP is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Therefore, information has been denied to the appellant.
2 Decision:
5. The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that in this case information has been sought from an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Hence, information cannot be provided to the appellant.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 3