Central Information Commission
Anuradha Singh vs Indian Army on 16 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IARMY/A/2024/607162
Anuradha Singh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Commanding Officer/PIO,
UNIT-622 EME BN,
PIN-906622, C/O 56 APO ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2025
Date of Decision : 15.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.08.2023
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 27.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 23.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"निवेदि है कि प्रार्थििी िे पनि NO.14687059F अभय प्रिाप स हिं पुत्र श्री लाल बहादरु स हिं UNIT 243 ARMD WKSP COY, (622 EME BN, PIN-906622, Page 1 of 5 C/O 56 APO) िायि िे पद पर नियुक्ि है , जिििे अविाश व अन्य म्बन्धी वववरण िी आवश्यििा है।
(a) प्रार्थििी िें आपिे पत्र िंख्या-21202 / Est-II ददिािंि 05.01.2023 िा िवाब ददिािंि 28.02.2023 िो ददया िथा एविं पत्र िंख्या-21201/PC/Est ददिािंि 30.01.2023 िो प्राथििा पत्र िा िवाब ददिािंि 27.03.2023 िो श्रीमाि िमाि अर्धिारी महोदय UNIT-622 EME BN, PIN-906622, C/O 56 APO िो ददया, जि िे म्बन्ध में प्रार्थििी िे पनि िे खिलाफ िााँच िर क्या ववभागीय िायिवाही िी गयी। इ म्बन्ध में ूचिा दे िे िा िष्ट िरें ।
अवलािलाथि हे िु - िबकि ी०डी० ििं0 12 ये िहिी है कि पनि िै े म्बन्ध े इन्िार िही किया िा ििा है , ( िंलग्ि छायाप्रनि) ी०डी० ििं0 11 में वाददिी िा िथि त्य है , पै े िा वववरण ( िंलग्ि छायाप्रनि)
(b) प्रार्थििी िे पनि े श्रीमाि िी आपिे द्वारा मािंगे गये िारण बिाओिं िोदट में मेरे पनि िे मेरे बारे में बहुि ही अश्लील बािें सलिी व बोली गयी है , श्रीमाि आप लोगो िे द्वारा पत्र िंख्या-21201/PC/Est ददिािंि 30.01.2023 िो officer commanding (AS Shekhawat), 243 Armd Wksp Coy PIN-906243 C/O 56 ΑΡΟ, (wcso), और पत्र िंख्या-21202/Est-II ददिािंि 05.01.2023 िो Mejor (Shubham kushwaha), HQ 22 RAPID(S)(A), PIN- 908422, C/O 56 APO, (aawa lucknow) एविं पत्र िंख्या-21202/AP Singh/Est-II ददिािंि 26.07.2023 िो Captain Sandeepdeshmuk (aawa lucknow) िो मेरे ववभाग मदहला एविं बाल ुरक्षा ग िं ठि लििऊ और आवा लििऊ िो आप श्रीमाि िी द्वारा पत्र भेिा गया जि े मेरी बहुि बदिामी और मािहानि हुई है , मै अपिे िौिरी पर ही े िायि िही िर पा रही हूाँ, िबकि मेरे पनि िे िोटि िे बयाि में व थािे िे बयाि में मेरे बारे में ऐ ी िोई बाि िही बोली गई है , मेरे बारे में गन्दी बािें मेरे पनि द्वारा िेवल आप महोदय िे मक्ष बोला िा रहा है । जि िा िवाब प्रार्थििी द्वारा पनि िे ववभाग िो ददया गया था। श्रीमाििी क्या आपिे द्वारा मेरे पनि े मुझे बद्धलि / अश्लील बािें ाबबि िरिे िे सलए िोई बूि मािंगा गया। इ म्बन्ध में ूचिा दे िे िा िष्ट िरें । (पनि िा बयाि िंलग्िि छायाप्रनि) Page 2 of 5
(c) श्रीमाि िी मेरे पनि फरवरी 2023 े िोटि िही आ रहे है , हर बार प्राथििा पत्र लगा रहे है कि मुझे छुट्टी िही समल रही है। मेरे पनि द्वारा फरवरी 2023 े स िम्बर 2023 िि उपभोग किये गए मस्ि प्रिार िे अविाश िा वववरण निर्थवार उपलब्ध िरािे िा िष्ट िरें ।
(d) मेरे द्वारा मदहला थािा बस्िी, उ०प्र० में दिि िराये गए असभयोग िी वववेचिा में वववेचि द्वारा अिंकिि िी गयी असभयोग दै नििी िंख्या 01 व असभयोग िंख्या-02 में मरे ॉ , ुर द्वारा िमन्िा िे बारे में िोई बचाि िही ददया गया है , असभयोग िे वववेचि द्वारा वववेचिा िे दौराि अिंकिि िी गयी असभयोग दै नििी िंख्या ििं0-12 (छायाप्रनि िंलग्ि) में यह अिंकिि किया गया है कि "अभय प्रिाप स हिं िा िमन्िा स हिं े गहरा म्बन्ध / पनि िा म्बन्ध होिे े इन्िार िही किया िा ििा"
क्या ऐ े म्बन्ध में रहिे िी अिुमसम ववभाग द्वारा दी िािी है ? स्पष्ट ूचिा दे िे िो िष्ट िरें ।
(e) िौिारी िे बहािे े मेरा पनि िमन्िा स हिं े समलिे िािा है , और इ मे मेरे ुराल वाले भी शासमल है , पत्िी होिे िे िािे क्या मुझे िाििे िा अर्धिार है या िहीिं कि मेरा पनि डडयूटी े घर िब आ रहे है और वाप िब िा रहे है , इ म्बन्ध में ूचिा दे िे िा िष्ट िरें ।"
2. Having not received any response from CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.09.2023. The FAA order is Not on record.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference.
Respondent: Shri Aniruddh (on behalf of Shri Ankur Gupta, CPIO) present through videoconference.Page 3 of 5
4. The Appellant while reiterating the contents of her RTI application pleaded that no reply has been provided to her till date.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that her husband against whom she has filed the complaint in 2023 was transferred to Jammu unit in January, 2023. He further submitted that service records of the individual are transferred to his current posting place, therefore, they are unable to provide any information to the Appellant.
6. The Appellant interjected and contended that her husband was transferred to Jammu in November 2023 i.e. much after she filed the RTI application under consideration; therefore, the version of Respondent is not acceptable, and she again emphasized that reply has not been given to her by the Respondent deliberately.
Decision:
7. At the outset, the Commission upon a perusal of records adversely viewed the conduct of the concerned CPIO of the relevant time and Shri Ankur Gupta, present CPIO of the Respondent Public Authority in not giving any reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time as per the RTI Act. Further, no cogent explanation for such delay has been tendered by the Respondent during the hearing. The CPIO is expected to have applied his mind and should have facilitated providing relevant information as sought by the Appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act from the concerned CPIO. Instead of doing the needful, the CPIO (the then and the present ones) at this belated stage washed their hands off by simply saying during hearing that information sought was not available in their office, which is not appreciated.
8. Such casual act of the CPIO tramples upon the citizen's right under the RTI Act as well as shows lack of respect towards the statutory provisions. Further, the First Appeal of the Appellant was also not adjudicated till date as per available records which depict that this case has been badly handled by the CPIO and FAA, which is not in the spirit of the RTI Act. Their conduct is not appreciated and deserves severe admonition. The current FAA is directed to get it noted in the relevant personal records of the CPIOs concerned.
9. In view of the above and since considerable time has passed, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent, CPIO, UNIT-622 EME BN, to provide relevant information, free of cost to the Appellant, after accessing the same from the concerned record holder under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Information which are exempted from disclosure under the Page 4 of 5 RTI Act be redacted/ blackened out. This direction should be complied with by the respondent within six weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
10. FAA to ensure compliance of the above-mentioned directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The First Appellate Authority, UNIT-622 EME BN, PIN-906622, C/O 56 APO Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)