Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Gangal vs Ministry Of Defence on 28 February, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DODEF/A/2022/155380
Ashok Kumar Gangal .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
RTI Cell, Addl. DG AE, G-6,
D-1 Wing, Sena Bhawan, Gate
No. 4, IHQ of MoD (Army),
New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26-02-2024
Date of Decision : 28-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23-03-2022
CPIO replied on : 17-05-2022
First appeal filed on : 10-08-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 18-10-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24-11-2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. I, the above named JCO serving in Army Medical Corps Since 02 Jan 1995 and presently posted with Army Hospital (R&R), Delhi Cantt was taken a HBA loan on account of renovation of house from AGIF and the same had been disbursed vide AGIF letter No A/56271/72/AG/Ins/HBA/G dated 30 Dec 2008. According to policy on the subject, I have deposited my original docus of property to AGIF. I had already been approached to AGIF office through telephonically again and again to return my original property docus but replied me that the docus will be returned on completion of the loan. On completion of the loan, I had again approached to the concerned Page 1 of 6 authority to return my original property docus vide 150 GH letter No 1822/M- 3(A)/Coy/Wel dated 23 Aug 2018.
2. AGIF had disbursed the loan amount to me on the address of MH Jodhpur through DD vide their letter No A/56271/72/AG/Ins/HBA/G dated 30 Dec 2008 but it is not understood that the my property docus why returned to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt as the AGIF disbursed the loan amount to me on my updated address (ie. MH Jodhpur).
3. AGIF had replied that original docus of property had already been fwd to BH Delhi vide their letter No A/56271/101/AG/Ins/HBA dt 06 Jan 2009 and thereafter asked from BH Delhi vide their letter No 3520/JN dt 24 Jan 2022 that the property docus of the JCO ne ther handed over to the JCO nor returned to this Directorate. It is learnt from the above that the acknowledge of the letter under which the original docus fwd has not received by the AGIF and no any type of action had been taken by the AGIF. In this matter, the acknowledge of receipt of the letter required or not and who will held responsible for such type of lapse as indl had not been provided any kind of information about his original property docus for a long period.
4. Photocopy of docket sheet of letter No A/56271/101/AG/Ins/HBA dt 06 Jan 2009 fwd to me as a proof of docus fwd to BH Delhi provided to me vide your letter No 3520JN dt 28 Jun 2021 but Registered/speed post receipt number has not been provided. Please justify in details in the matter that the indl was posted with MH Jodhpur then why the docus fwd to BH Delhi without info to the indl concerned.
5. In view of the above, I request your personal indulgence to get investigated it thoroughly to got suitable/genuine information for the said RTI application as asked above. "
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.05.2022 stating as under:
"2. Application for HBA (repair and renovation) was recd from No 13990298K Hav Ashok Kumar Gangal now JC-697444H Sub Ashok Kumar Gangal while he was posted at Base Hospital, Delhi.
3. It is true that the DD for the HBA amt was fwd to MH Jodhpur, vide AGIF letter No A/56271/101/AG/Ins/HBA dated 30 Dec 2008. The property documents were dispatched vide AGIF letter No A/56271/101/AG/Ins/HBA dt 06 Jan 2009 to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt since the address recorded at the time of his application was given such. Since the correspondence of that period has been destroyed as per extant policy, no further info in this regard has been possible.
4 Considering that the issue is being raised after a lapse of more than ten yrs, with all older correspondence at both AGIF as well as Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt having been destroyed, the task of locating the documents has become too challenging. Notwithstanding, on behest of the requests made by the indl, AGIF did make all attempts to locate the property documents at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The JCO Page 2 of 6 was also taken to the premises where the documents are stored to physically locate his file, but same could not be found.
5 The indl may be advised to initiate the process to obtain duplicate copy of the property. All requisite help from AGIF will be promptly rendered."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 18.10.2022, held as under:-
"2. It is intimated that Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI 1860 with the Registrar of Societies, New Delhi. The Govt of India vide its letter No A/37586/AG/PO&JEC/9302/D (Pay/Services) dated 15 December 1975 has conveyed the sanction of President of India for constitution of AGIF w.e.f. 01 January 1976 as an approved fund for the purpose of deduction under Rule 205 (b) of Army Rule, 1954 to meet compulsory contribution to the Fund. The AGIF administers and funds the insurance scheme for the welfare of Army personnel in accordance with the AGIF Rule, 1982. It is neither a deptt of the Govt nor controlled nor funded by the Govt of India and thus AGIF is neither a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor a public authority as defined in Section 2 (pl of the RTI Act 2005.
3. Notwithstanding, the above, a suitable reply given to you vide ADG AE(RTI Cell) Service Note No A/810027/RTI/OF_72505 dated 17 May 2022. You have been extended all the assistance by letting your visit to the premises where the documents are stored. Furthermore, you have been spoken to on numerous occasions to resolve the issue.
4. Thus all issues as highlighted in the RTI dated 10 August 2022 have already been addressed to you vide ADG AE(RTI Cell) Service Note dated 17 May 2022. Copy of the same is enclosed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gangal, attended the hearing. Respondent: Brigadier Tamojeet Biswas, CPIO/IHQ of MOD (RTI Cell), Lt. Col. Vikram Singh, AGIF and Lt. Col. Vivekanand Sant, Base Hospital (Delhi Cantt.), attended the hearing.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. While explaining the brief background of the case, he stated that he has taken a HBA loan on account of Page 3 of 6 renovation of his house from Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF) in the year of 2008 for which he has deposited the original property documents to AGIF. The Appellant pleaded that the person responsible for misplacing his sale deed in AGIF should be held accountable and punished because he doubts that the entry in the dispatch register is fictitious and an afterthought which is not supported by requisite stamp disposal details or signature of the dispatcher/recipient messenger.
The Respondent authority is supposed to keep the documents in safe custody till completion of loan recovery. He added that the loan was completed in the year 2014 and thereafter, he has requested the department to return his original property documents from where it came to his knowledge that the Respondent department has lost his original documents and that is why he has filed the instant RTI Application.
Lt. Col. Vikram Singh, AGIF, submitted that the Appellant has taken loan in the category of repair and renovation under which the original property documents are returned after doing the needful within one month from the date of disbursal of the loan amount, as per the policy. In this case also, the original property documents were dispatched in the month of January 2009 to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment since the address of the Appellant recorded at that time was given such. He submitted that the original sale deed documents appear to have been lost in transit. The Respondent further submitted that the case is more than 7 years old and further investigation is not likely to yield any positive and fruitful result. He added that all the correspondence of that period has been destroyed as per the extant policy. He further added that AGIF did make all attempts to locate the property documents at Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment and the Appellant was also taken to the premises where the documents are stored to physically locate his file, but same could not be found. He further expressed his willingness to facilitate the Appellant in any possible manner to locate his original documents or get compensation for the property in question which as per Appellant is being acquired for road construction.
The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to provide the date of registry of the sale deed of his property to which the Appellant stated that can neither recall the exact date of registry of the sale deed nor has he got any details of Khasra number of the averred property. The Commission further asked the Appellant that whether he has applied for leave from his office at Page 4 of 6 the time of registry of the property to get an idea of date registration of sale deed, the Appellant replied in affirmative.
During the hearing, possible ways of helping the Appellant were also discussed. One way could be by making an effort to trace the date of Appellant availing leave for the purpose of registration of sale deed. Then registrar of properties concerned should be approached for providing copy of the relevant pages of register showing the necessary details and possibly a copy of the sale deed should also be available there. These coupled with a sworn affidavit from the authority that the original sale deed has been lost in transit should suffice for the purpose of the Appellant. The Appellant was also advised to approach the LAO in the meantime to apprise him of his interest in the said property. The Respondent is at liberty to help the Appellant in any better manner possible in the instant matter.
A written submission has been received from Brigadier Tamojeet Biswas, CPIO/IHQ of MOD, vide letter dated 22.02.2024 and the same has been taken on record.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case and on the basis of the submissions made by the parties during the hearing, the Commission observes that an adequate reply on the basis of available records has been provided to the Appellant. The Commission is of the opinion that the Appellant should not suffer any loss due to any act of commission or omission of Respondent, and hence, the Commission directs Lt. Col. Vikram Singh, AGIF, to make all possible efforts to address/redress the genuine grievance of the Appellant as discussed during the hearing.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 28-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6