Central Information Commission
Santosh Kumar Mohanty vs Indian Navy on 3 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/INAVY/A/2023/137646
CIC/INAVY/A/2023/138020
Santosh Kumar Mohanty .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Naval Dockyard,
S.B.S. Road, Mumbai - 400023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.12.2024
Date of Decision : 03.01.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
CIC/INAVY/A/2023/137646
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.05.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.09.2023
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.02.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"CONCERNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, NAVAL DOCKYARD, LION GATE, MUMBAI-400023 QUERY: 1. Please provide the details of the NAME of the SERVICE/ POST of the Advertisement No davp 7001(49)2002 dated 28 Sep 2002 advertised, in the SERVICE/ POST of which the Applicant appointed in Naval Dockyard(Mumbai) under the provision of Advertisement No davp 7001(49)2002 dated 28 Sep 2002(Copy attached) has been confirmed.
Applicant Details: Santosh Kumar Mohanty, T.No.: 13022T, C.No.: 31/AST, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai"
The CPIO vide its letter dated 12.05.2023 had provided reply to the Appellant, which states as under:
"No records pertaining to the advertisement for recruitment of Apprentices under Apprentice Act is available in this office. Therefore the information sought is not available in this office."
The appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.09.2023 had observed as under:
"2. Your First Appeal at Para 1(a) ibid, for denying information by the PIO in mala fide intentions has been examined. It is seen that information sought vide your application dated 10 Feb 2023 at Para 1(b) ibid, was suitably replied vide Naval Dockyard, Mumbai letter at Para 1(c) ibid, forwarded to your address by registered post
3. Further, following is submitted with reference to your first Appeal at Para 1(a) ibid:-
(a) DAS(Mbi) provides training to apprentices in various trades as per Apprentice Act 1961. Accordingly, the advertisement mentioned by you in your RTI application was for recruitment of apprentices under Apprentice Act 1961 and was published for inviting applications from ITI qualified candidates from following trades for undergoing apprenticeship training at DAS(Mbi):-Page 2 of 6
0 For One Year Training Fitter (39), Ref & A/C Mech (05), Machinist (10), Turner (10), Electro Plator (05), Welder (11), Painter (10). Cutting & Tailoring (05), Instrument Mech (11) (8) For Two Years Training: Carpenter (10), Diesel Mech (21), Electrician (10), Millwright Maint. Mech. (10), Electronics Mech/Radio & T.V. Mech. (24), Plumber (19)
(b) You were selected as apprentice for 01 year apprenticeship training at DAS(Mbi) in Fitter Trade w.e.f. 15 Apr 2003 to 14 Apr 2004 and were not appointed for any post/ service at ND(Mbi) by DAS(Mbi)."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/INAVY/A/2023/138020 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.02.2023 CPIO replied on : 06.06.2023 First appeal filed on : 19.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.09.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"CONCERNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, NAVAL DOCKYARD, LION GATE, MUMBAI-400023 QUERY: 1 Please provide the certified true copy of APPOINTMENT ORDER of the Applicant appointed to the POST of Para 11(d) which states as -the names of the posts of grades or services etc. from which deputation/absorption is proposed -in ANNEXURE -II (copy attached) of supporting particular of the post TRADESMAN SKILLED of Recruitment Rule SRO 150/2000, before absorbed on 23 Nov 2005 in Naval Dockyard (Mumbai).
Applicant-Details: Santosh Kumar Mohanty, T.No.: 13022T, C.No.:31/AST, Naval Dockyard, Mumbai-23"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.06.2023 stating as under: Page 3 of 6
"The following are submitted w.r.t. the information sought vide your application at Para 1 ibid:-
Query 1: The Annexure-Il requested by you is not available with this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 11.09.2023 had observed as under:
"3. Further, following is submitted with reference to your first Appeal at Para 1(a) Ibid The certified true copy of Appointment Order of the applicant appointed to the post (Naval Apprentice) of Para 11(d) which states as "the names of the posts of grades or services etc. from which deputation/ absorption is proposed in Annexure-II of supporting particular of the post Tradesman Skilled of Recruitment Rule SRO 150/2000, before absorbed (to the post of Tradesman Skilled) on 23 Nov 2005 in Naval Dockyard (Mumbai) is not available".
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh and Shri Surinder Singh present through Video-Conference.
Written submissions of the Respondents are taken on record.
The Respondents submitted that vide their letters dated 12.05.2023, 04.09.2023, 06.06.2023 and 11.09.2023, complete factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant. However, now at the stage of second appeal, they have placed on record updated information by way of their written submissions wherein updated reply/information is provided to the Appellant.Page 4 of 6
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondents and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeals is aggrieved that till date complete information has not been provided to him within stipulated period as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that information as per their record as available at relevant point of time has already been provided to the Appellant.
The Respondents, now at the stage of the second appeal, has placed on record a revised reply in the form of written submissions before the Commission which in view of the Commission is an adequate response to the RTI application.
Further, the said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as an updated reply to the instant RTI application, which the Respondents has already shared with the Appellant.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the Appellnt is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927Date Page 5 of 6 Copy To:
The FAA Naval Dockyard, S.B.S. Road, Mumbai - 400023 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)