Central Information Commission
Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs Indian Navy on 27 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No:
CIC/INAVY/A/2024/128348
CIC/INAVY/A/2024/128353
CIC/INAVY/A/2024/128386
CIC/INAVY/A/2024/132018
CIC/INAVY/A/2024/131996
Yogesh Kumar Agrawal ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
The CPIO
Headquarter,
Western Naval Command,
5th Floor, Noorbhoy Building,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai-400001
Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026
Date of Decision : 25.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
The above mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the appellant
and respondent are common, hence are being disposed of through a common
order.
Relevant facts emerging from second appeals:
Case Date of RTI CPIO Reply First FAA Order Second
No Appeal Appeal
Dated Dated
128348 30.04.2024 28.05.2024 10.06.2024 15.07.2024 05.09.2024
128353 11.03.2024 04.06.2024 11.06.2024 25.06.2024 05.09.2024
128386 01.06.2024 26.06.2024 01.07.2024 24.07.2024 12.09.2024
132018 30.05.2024 18.07.2024 30.07.2024 04.09.2024 15.10.2024
131996 30.06.2024 18.07.2024 27.07.2024 28.08.2024 20.10.2024
Page 1 of 12
1. First Appeal- CIC/INAVY/A/2024/128348
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"1) Refer to letter no. HQWNC/CCPO letter No. CS/V/MISC/06/2020 dt. 22 Nov 23.
2) It is submitted that only Conciliations have been mentioned in the committee's report and both the respondents and complainant should be transferred to other Unit/Station in recommendation. So please provide a copy of HQWNC/CCPO letter No. CS/V/MISC/06/2020 dt. 22 Nov 23 for my future reference".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.05.2024 stating as under:
"1) Refer to your RTI Application dated 30 Apr 24 received vide this office on 15 May 24.
2) The information sought vide your RTI application dated 30 Apr 24 is as under :-
Query Reply Please provide a copy of The information is exempted under HQWNC/CCPO letter no section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act 2005.
CS/V/MISC/06/2020 dated 22 Nov 23 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) Your RTI application under reference stands disposed of".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 10.06.2024. The FAA vide its order on 15.07.2024 stated as under:
"1) Please refer to your First Appeal dated 10 Jun 24 received in this office on 20 Jun 24. 20 Jun 24.Page 2 of 12
2) The information sought vide above mentioned First Appeal can not be provided as the same is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. The requisite document was given by one authority to another authority under fiduciary relationship and also contains third party information.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) This disposes of your First Appeal under reference".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 17.03.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record wherein it is stated that the sought information is exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is also stated that the sought documents are given by one authority to another authority in fiduciary relationship and also contains third party information.
2. Second Appeal:- CIC/INAVY/A/2024/128353 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2024 seeking the following information:
"I am Yogesh K Agrawal, working was Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspectorate (West). I would like to get information on the basis of Report/Recommendations of WCC (Women Complaint Committee), Headquarters, Western Naval Command in my case vide CCPO letter CS/WCC/2023/085 dt. 30 Oct 23, HQWNC/CCPO letter No. CS/V/MISC/06/2020 dt. 30 Oct 23 and HQWNC/CCPO letter No. CS/V/MISC/06/2020 dt. 22 Nov
23. Both parties (Complainant and Respondent) should be station transferred, it was mentioned in the recommendation of the committee was mentioned as mandatory and I have already transferred out station on the basis Committee recommendation but the complainant has not transferred even after 03 months passed away of my Transfer order. Is it justice for myself? Have any other reason to not transfer to the other party till now? Please provide information the current transfer status of the complainant".Page 3 of 12
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 04.06.2024 stating as under:
"1) Refer to your RTI application dated 11 Mar 24, received by this office on 07 May 24.
2) The information sought in the above mentioned RTI application pertains to third party and is exempted under section 11 of the RTI Act 2005.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) Your RTI application under reference stands disposed of".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 11.06.2024. The FAA vide its order on 25.06.2024 stated as under:
"1) Refer to your First Appeal dated 11 Jun 24, received by this Headquarters on 14 Jun 24.
2) The above mentioned First Appeal was examined and it is seen that your RTI application dated 11 Mar 24 was appropriately replied by HQWNC / PIO vide letter dated 04 Jun 24.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) This disposes off your First Appeal under reference".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 17.03.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record wherein it is stated that the sought information pertains to third party information, therefore, it cannot be provided to the appellant. It is also stated that same is exempt under section11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 123. Third Appeal:- CIC/INAVY/A/2024/128386 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"I am Yogesh K Agrawal, employed was NAI (Trombay), Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection (West) Mumbai. I would like to get information my APAR (Annual Performance Assessment Report) of Examiner (A) during period 01 Apr 22 to 31 Mar 23. I was employed as Group 'C' post held during period 01 Apr 22 to 31 Mar 23 in NAI (Trombay), CNAI (West). I have works under directly CTO (Civilian Technical Officer) Group 'B' Gazzetted Officer & STO (Senior Technical Officer) Group 'A' Gazzetted Officer during this period respectively. But my APAR deliberately filled by Cdr Senthil S, SINA (Trombay) as a Reporting/ Initial Officer due to downgrading for my APAR - 2022-23. In other department like as Naval Armament Depot and Naval Dockyard APAR for group C' employee is grading filled/ given by the directly under the concern officer like as Chargeman or Foreman. I was working Trade Inspection section under directly Shri Muzzafar Ali, CTO (Mech), Sec-in-charge (Trade Inspection) and Shri Akshay T Parate, STO (Mech) Officer- in-charge (Trade Inspection). But even after being under the CTO & STO in the Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection (West) the APAR is not allowed for grading by the CTO (Mech) & STO (Mech) as a Reporting Officer & Review Officer respectively. So please provide information under which guidelines Cdr Senthil S, SINA (Trombay) as Reporting/ Initial Officer of my APAR during period 01 Apr 2022 to 31 Mar 2023".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.06.2024 stating as under:
"1) Refer to your RTI application dated 19 Jun 24, received by this office on 18 Jun 24.
2) The APAR of Cadre personnel is prepared and rendered iaw instructions and provisions contained in DoP&T OMs and any amplifying instructions issued from time to time by the Competent Authority.Page 5 of 12
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) Your RTI application under reference stands disposed of".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 01.07.2024. The FAA vide its order on 24.07.2024 stated as under:
"1) Refer to your First Appeal dated 01 Jul 24, received by this Headquarters on 05 Jul 24.
2) The above mentioned First Appeal was examined and it is seen that your RTI application dated 01 Jun 24 was appropriately replied by HQWNC / PIO vide letter dated 26 Jun 24. No additional information is held and in this regard, Gol, DOPT OM No 1/18/2011-IR dated 16 Sep 11 is relevant.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) This disposes off your First Appeal under reference".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 17.03.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record wherein it is stated that the APAR of CNAI(West) personnel is prepared and rendered instructions and provisions containing DoP&T OMs and amplifying instructions issued from time to time by the competent authority. No additional information is held with their office with regard to query raised by the applicant. In this regard, Gol, DoP&T OM No. 1/18/2011-IR dated 16.09.2011 is relevant.
4. Fourth Appeal:- CIC/INAVY/A/2024/132018 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2024 seeking the following information:
" 1) Refer to CNAI (West) admin letter No. 26/19 dt. 04 Apr 19.Page 6 of 12
2) I am Yogesh Kumar regarding Group 'B' Gazzetted officer in the Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection (West) including NAI (Trombay) are being given Compensatory off/ Time off for personal relation. The Gazzetted officer are not eligible for Compensatory off/ Time off according to DOPT guidelines & CNAI (West) admin order 26/19 dated 04 Apr 19.
So please provide the information under which policy were the CNAI (West) given Compensatory off/ Time off to Group 'B' Gazzeted officer".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.07.2024 stating as under:
"1) Refer to your RTI application dated 30 May 24, received by this office on 16 'ul 24.
2) No Compensatory Leave is allowed to Central Government Gazetted Officers as per CCS (Leave) rules. Hence, no information held with CNAI (West).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) Your RTI application under reference stands disposed of".
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 30.07.2024.
The FAA vide its order on 04.09.2024 stated as under:
"1) Refer to your First Appeal dated 30 Jul 24, received by this Headquarters on 07 Aug 24.
2) The above mentioned First Appeal was examined and it is seen that your RTI application dated 30 May 24 was appropriately replied by HQWNC / PIO vide letter dated 18 Jul 24.
3) It is further intimated that, in this regard Gol, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT) Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 1647 answered on 13 Feb 19 is relevant.
Relevant Leave Rules are also available on Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM) website https:/www.istm.gov.in. (Copies of above documents are enclosed).
Page 7 of 12XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5) This disposes off your First Appeal under reference".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 17.03.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record wherein it is stated that the no Compensatory Leave is allowed to Central Government Gazetted Officers as per CCS(Leave) rules. Hence, no additional information held with their office.
5. Fifth Appeal:- CIC/INAVY/A/2024/131996 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.06.2024 seeking the following information:
" 1) I would like to get information regarding Factory Act and License. In Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection (West), Mumbai only the Technical Supervisor has the provision for overtime as per Section 64 of the Factory act 1948. Under which the factory license is issued to the CNAI (West) by the agency for the Technical Supervisor. The Ministerial Staff in the CNAI (West) has also been given the benefit of overtime for a long time, but there is no mention of overtime of Ministerial Staff in the Factory license and Factory Act.
2) So please provide information under which authority or guidelines is the Ministerial Staff being given overtime on the basis of Factory license and Factory act".
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.07.2024 stating as under:
"1) Refer to your RTI application dated 30 Jun 24, received by this office on 11 Jul 24.Page 8 of 12
2) Ministerial Staff of CNAI (W) is being provided with Overtime in accordance with Section 64 of the Factories Act 1948 in conjunction with Maharashtra Factories Rules 1963.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
4) Your RTI application under reference stands disposed of."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal on dated 27.07.2024. The FAA vide its order on 28.08.2024 stated as under:
"1) Refer to your First Appeal dated 27 Jul 24, received by this Headquarters on08 Aug 2024.
2) The above mentioned First Appeal was examined and it is seen that your RTI application dated 30 Jun 24 was appropriately replied by HQWNC / PIO vide letter dated 18 Jul 24.
3) It is further intimated that, "Ministerial Staff of CNAI (W) is being provided with overtime in accordance with Section 64 of the Factories Act 1948 in conjunction with Maharashtra Factories Rule 1963. In this regard, Govt. of Maharashtra, Directorate of Industrial Security and Health Certificate Ser No. IS&H/ Suit/ 2428 dated 07 Feb 2013 is relevant. Further, the Maharashtra Factories Rules 1963 has provisions for admissibility of overtime for such staff and is paid through OTA code head 90/ 622/ 04 allocated to CNAI (W) by the competent authority".
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions dated 17.03.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record wherein it is stated that the RTI application dated 20.06.2024 was responded to vide letter dated 18.07.2024. It is further stated that in compliance with DoP&T OM No. 11013/13/2023-Pers Policy-A.III dated 23.06.2023 and 15.06.2024, all Ministries/Departments/Organisations are required to strictly implement AEBAS for ensuring punctuality. Accordingly, due to the biometric machine at NAI (Trombay) being non-operational and NAD (Trombay) being in close proximity, personnel were advised to mark attendance at NAD (Trombay) biometric machine. It is also stated that as per Biometric Attendance Manual, 2018, there exists Page 9 of 12 a provision for marking attendance in another organization. Copy of written submissions is found endorsed to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Agrawal Respondent: Capt. Gaurav Mahajan, PIO, HQ, W.N.C., Indian Navy Mumbai
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. Written submissions dated Nil filed by the appellant is taken on record wherein it is stated that that he wants to withdraw all the five instant second appeals.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that available information has been already been provided to the appellant, in each case however, certain information falls under exemption under section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, hence same cannot be disclosed.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records and written submissions, notes that in Second appeal no. 128348, 132018 and 131996 satisfactory replies were provided to the appellant against each of his RTI application.
However, the Commission notes that in Second Appeal No. 128386, the appellant had sought a copy of guidelines regarding the writing of his APAR, while the respondent CPIO had merely quoted DoP&T guidelines in this regard. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that there exists a channel of Reporting and Reviewing officer for Group C employees and C.R section had written the APAR of the appellant as per the laid down protocol.
In Second Appeal No. 128353, the appellant has sought information regarding the transfer status of the complainant and reasons for non- transfer. The respondent has denied the information citing Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005, treating it as third-party information. The Commission observes that Section 11 prescribes a procedure for consultation with the Page 10 of 12 third party and does not constitute an exemption by itself and in the instant second appeal no such denial by third party i.e., the employee who made the complaint against the appellant has been placed on record. Moreover, information relating to transfer/posting status of an employee is an administrative matter and cannot be treated as wholly confidential despite the fact that such employee is a third party. During the hearing, respondent submitted that based on the recommendations of the Committee, both the complainant and the appellant were transferred out of HQ station. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that information with respect to status of transfer of that employee i.e., the complainant can be provided to the appellant.
The Commission also notes the oral and written submission of the appellant that he wants to withdraw all the instant second appeals.
Nonetheless, in the interest of transparency the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent CPIO to re-examine the RTI application dated 30.04.2024 and 11.03.2024 and provide a revised reply to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
With the above observations and directions, the instant appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 25.03.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (SK Chitkara) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 11 of 12 Addresses of the Parties:
1. The CPIO Headquarter, Western Naval Command, 5th Floor, Noorbhoy Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai-400001
2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Agrawal Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)