Central Information Commission
Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan vs Defence Research And Development ... on 16 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2019/132445
In the matter of:
Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Defence Research and Development Organisation
RTI Cell, 314-A, 'B' Block, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110 011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/04/2019 CPIO replied on : 23/04/2019 First appeal filed on : 02/05/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 03/06/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 05/07/2019 Date of Hearing : 16/03/2021 Date of Decision : 16/03/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Ms Kalindhi Chauhan , rep of the appellant Respondent: Ms Anushree Tomar , Scientist E & CPIO Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with reference to his representation dated 16/06/2016 and the Demand Notice dated 19/11/2018 addressed to the Chairman, DRDO:
1. What action has been taken on his Demand Notice in the light of para 4 of the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensioners, Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare O.M. No. 3/3/2016-P&PW(F) dated 16/01/2017 which stipulates fixing of responsibility for the loss of public money?
2. Copy of the order of the competent authority i.e. Secretary of the Administrative Ministry, who sanctioned the payment of interest on GPF, beyond retirement, in terms of Rule 11(4) of GPF Rules, 1960, for fixing the responsibility at all levels for loss of public money due to their corrupt practices.
3. Copy of the final enquiry report and particulars of the officials who have been found responsible for delayed payment of his GPF dues.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has rejected the application under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal submitted that the information sought by him under the RTI Act on the subject matter pertains to corrupt practices by the concerned officials in the Department and also violation of human rights. He further submitted that the information sought under the RTI Act had been arbitrarily denied by both the CPIO and the FAA in DRDO HQ by wrongly and blatantly taking undue shelter of Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act as if they are not able to understand whether the information sought belongs to corruption and violation of human rights or not. He alleged that the FAA has tried to play very safely by taking the stand that if the information pertains to violation of human rights, the same shall be provided only on recommendation of the Chief Information commission. This is totally absurd and shows unbecoming of both CPIO and FAA in DRDO HQ, being biased and interested.
In the back drop of the above, he submitted that the appellant voluntarily retired from service on 01.03.2016. He was not paid his GPF dues on the date of retirement and the same was delayed intentionally by the dealing officials with vested interests. Later, GPF dues were paid on 14.06.2016 and interest thereon was paid only up to 29.02.20L6. A copy of DRDO HQ sanction letter dated 31.12.2015 was enclosed and marked as Annexure-A/1'. He further submitted that the Dealing officials did not publish Do Part II No. 24 dated 08.03.2016 immediately after receipt of sanction order dated 31.12.2015 and even copy of delayed published Do Part ll was not given to PCDA (R&D), New Delhi who is responsible to manage and make payment of funds at the time retirement, resignation etc. A copy of DO Paft II order dated 08.03.2016 was enclosed and marked as Annexure-A/2'. He further submitted that he had submitted his representation dated 16.06.2016 apprising violation of GPF Rules thereby denying interest on GPF accumulation beyond the date of retirement to the date of actual payment. A copy of the said representation was enclosed and marked as Annexure - A/3.
He alleged that the aforesaid representation was knowingly rejected in order to cause undue mental harassment and financial loss. The appellant had to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jabalpur for mitigating injustice. In that, the violation of GPF Rules in the case of appellant has been confirmed by Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 24.10.2018. A copy of the order was marked as Annexure-A/4.
Thereafter, the appellant submitted his demand notice dated 19.11.2018. Now, action was to be taken by the competent Authority in a fair and transparent manner in the light of Para4 of Min. Of Personnel, PG & Pensioners, Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners' welfare O.M No. 3/3/2016-P&PW (F) dated 16.O1.2017 which stipulates fixing of responsibility for the loss of public money. No response has yet been given to the applicant as to what action has been taken in the matter.
He summed up stating that therefore, he sought information under public interest to know the action taken by the competent authority in the matter or if not taken, under what authority. He further submitted that both the CPIO and the FAA had incorrectly denied the information sought. Therefore, having failed to evoke action on the part of Respondent's, he issued "Notice of Contempt" dated 28/05/20L9 to - (1) the Secretary, MoD, Govt. of India, New Delhi, (2) Chairman, DRDO, (3) Director, INMAS, Delhi and PCDA (R&D), New Delhi for their wilful disobedience of Tribunal order dated 24.10.2019. On 03.07.2019, instead of giving proper response, Director, INMAS' Delhi made payment of Rs 4488/- through RTGS by crediting the same into the bank account of the appellant. This proves beyond doubt that the dealing and responsible officials from top to bottom were not conducting themselves in a fair and transparent manner. This is proved corruption and violation of human rights as the appellant was eligible to get his dues directly on the date of retirement without any delay and undue harassment. The dealing officials were knowingly denying interest on the GPF accumulation of the appellant without any valid authority rather in violation of existing GPF Rules and Govt of India instructions. This is an act of corruption and violation of human rights. The representative of the appellant informed that the appellant could not be present due to some exigency, but she stated she has given written submissions to the Commission on 15.03.2021 which may be taken on record . She also requested for postponement of the case on the grounds of the appellant's inability to be present.
The CPIO submitted that DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24(1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The appellant was informed that his request for information does not come under the purview of the above mentioned provisions. Therefore, his application is rejected under Section 24(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the FAA had also concurred with the CPIO's reply.
Observations:
The Commission informed the representative of the appellant that no postponement is possible as this was not requested for in time and the written submissions apparently given one day before the hearing will be perused and taken into account for deciding the case. However, after the hearing was over, the registry attached to this bench informed that no written submissions have been received so far.
The Commission observes at the very outset that the primary grievance of the Appellant is his apparent dissatisfaction with delayed payment of GPF dues and non payment of interest despite the order of the CAT Jabalpur bench. Being a specific service grievance, it is not appropriate to ascribe the aspect of corruption and human rights violation to the matter. The non implementation of a Tribunal order can in no way be construed as a violation of human rights or corruption. The applicant is at liberty to follow the due process of law for the implementation of the CAT order. As far as information sought is concerned, the same cannot be disclosed being not covered within the ambit of allegations of corruption or violation of human rights. DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged. The expression ''allegation of corruption'' and ''violation of human rights'' is not defined in the Act, thus, it is open to the Commission to decide whether the allegation of corruption or human rights violation applies or is relevant on a case to case basis. The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word 'corruption' or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the Appellant.
It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 83/2014 held that "...once the CIC has held that DRDO is an exempted organisation under Section 24 of RTI Act and the information sought does not pertain to corruption and/or human rights violation, it was not open to the CIC to carve out any further exemption"
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that- "...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act"
Decision:
The aforesaid adequately proves that the Appellant's instant case cannot be deemed as a matter of violation of his fundamental rights/human rights violation nor has the allegation of corruption been substantiated. A conjoint reading of the above ratios laid down by the superior courts as well as the observations of the Commission leads to the conclusion that no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना 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