Central Information Commission
Vivek Sharma vs Indian Navy on 9 May, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/INAVY/A/2020/140907
In the matter of:
Vivek Sharma
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Head Quarters, Southern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Kochi, Kerala -682004
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/10/2020 CPIO replied on : 20/10/2020 First appeal filed on : 03/11/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 25/11/2020 Second Appeal filed on : 16/12/2020 Date of Hearing : 09/05/2022 Date of Decision : 09/05/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Captain Ajay Dhiman, CPIO, present over VC Information Sought The appellant has sought the following information related to Suyes Kumar / Suyes Tiwari of Deoria, Lucknow, UP who is currently posted at Southern Naval Base Command, Wellington Island, Kochi, Kerala:
1. Employee / Service Number of Suyes Kumar / Tiwari.
2. DOB of said person.
3. Father name as per records along with contact no.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 25.04.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED039841678IN.
The appellant submitted that the third party had indulged in the act of adultery, fraud and cheating along with the applicant's wife Priyanka Sharma and got married silently to his wife serving in the lndian Army (Service Number NS-23654W) at an unidentified place in the year 2016. The said Suyes Kumar Tiwari had indulged in a void relation with the applicant's wife since 2013 and despite knowing the fact of her first marriage deliberately and intentionally built such illicit relationship and spoiled the personal as well as professional life of the applicant. Therefore, the said Suyes Kumar/Tiwari is the culprit of adultery which is against the code and conduct of military laws and also breach of Good Order and Conduct and hence is a disciplinary issue as per military laws.
He further submitted that the respondent PIO has intentionally and deliberately withheld the above information in order to protect and provide a shield to the fraud of Suyes Kumar Tiwari who himself has done cheating and fraud with the appellant and the respondent PIO officer is defending the fraud of this Suyes Kumar Tiwari. That Suyes Kumar Tiwari has indulged in the act of adultery and living in void second marriage since 2016 (Hindu Marriage states second marriage stood null and void as per Hindu Marriage Act 1955 during lifetime of the living spouse). There is provision in the Military Act to deal with the cases of adultery on the basis of fraud intention and cheating under section 45 of the Army Act (Unbecoming conduct) and section 63 (violation of good order and discipline) a parallel provision of the Navy and the Air Force. He requested that the appeal of the applicant be allowed and the information sought be provided to him free of cost and proper departmental and disciplinary action be instituted on the basis of the above complaint against the said Suyes Kumar Tiwari. The appellant in his second appeal alleged that the third party and his wife Priyanka got married and legally his wife had not obtained divorce from him before getting married. He pressed for the information sought in this context.
2Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the PIO vide letter dated 20.10.2020 replied to the appellant and denied the information, stating that the information sought is related to a third party and is exempted u/s 11 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 25.11.2020 disposed of the first appeal and concurred with the CPIO's reply. The Commission observed that the CPIO had not invoked the correct exemption clause while denying the information sought. Be that as it may, the information sought is related to personal details of a third party and therefore stands exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant admittedly is aware of the provisions under the law for redressal of matrimonial disputes and therefore, his grievance cannot be settled under the RTI Act Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant and upholds the denial of the information under Sec 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना 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
3