Central Information Commission
Ashwani Kumar Gupta vs Defence Research And Development ... on 16 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2019/128745
In the matter of:
Ashwani Kumar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Defence Research and Development Organisation
Centre for Fire, Explosive and Environment Safety (CFEES)
Brig. S K Mazumdar Marg, Timarpur, Delhi - 110 054
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 31/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 20/02/2019 First appeal filed on : 11/03/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 04/04/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 13/06/2019 Date of Hearing : 16/03/2021 Date of Decision : 16/03/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over intra VC
Respondent: Dr. P.K.Rai, Scientist G & CPIO, ; B.S.Yadav, Jt Director Adm; Ms Anushree Tomar Scientist E , rep from Hqrs Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Status of action taken on his grievance sent through e-mail dated 16/10/2018, to Director, CFEES.
2. As to why the name of the appellant was deleted from the project team.
3. What action has been taken on the corruption matter as described in the grievance.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has rejected the application under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that the matter pertains to imminent danger to his life and liberty. He further submitted that it related to human rights violation and corruption, therefore information had been sought in view of section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
Furthermore, he requested the Commission to refer to (Annexure-A) (page 11) in respect of point no. 1 of his RTI application in which he attached the grievance e-mail dated 14.10.2018. In respect of point no. 2 he submitted that the authentication report authenticated by Project leader and Director CFEES has been sent to Recruitment & Assesment Centre (DRDO) for promotion assessment, describing the participation of the individual in the project activity (Authentication report is available at Recruitment & Assesment Centre (RAC), DRDO.). In respect of point no. 3 he submitted that an internal fact finding committee had been formed to inspect the matter but things were mysteriously hidden. In respect of points no. 4&5 he submitted that as per industrial safety audit observations by DQRS vide letter no. CFEES/SED/ION/2019 dated 29th January 2019, it is clearly mentioned that the facility should be isolated but it is not complied. He further submitted that an accident had already occurred in the past in which a bullet proof chamber had been torn into pieces. Furthermore, he submitted that the application dated 10.07.2018, for suitable sitting place for the applicant has not been entertained (Attached as Annexure "B") (page 12). He reiterated the same at the time of the hearing.
The CPIO submitted that DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24(1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The appellant was informed that his request for information does not come under the purview of the above mentioned provisions. Therefore, his application is rejected under Section 24(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the FAA had also concurred with the CPIO's reply. Observations:
The Commission observes at the very outset that the primary grievance of the Appellant is his apparent dissatisfaction with the removal of his name from the project team. Being a specific service grievance, it is not appropriate to ascribe the aspect of corruption and human rights violation to the matter.
DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged.
The expression ''allegation of corruption'' and ''violation of human rights'' is not defined in the Act, thus, it is open to the Commission to decide whether the allegation of corruption or human rights violation applies or is relevant on a case to case basis. The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word 'corruption' or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the Appellant.
It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 83/2014 held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"
Further, the above judgment was amplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that- "...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act".
Decision:
The aforesaid adequately proves that the Appellant's instant case cannot be considered as a matter of violation of his fundamental rights/human rights violation nor has the allegation of corruption been substantiated. A conjoint reading of the above ratios laid down by the superior courts as well as the observations of the Commission leads to the conclusion that no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date