Central Information Commission
Mr. Manohar Singh vs Intelligence Bureau on 7 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/00565 dated 26-5-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Manohar Singh
Respondent: Intelligence Bureau (IB).
Heard and decision announced 7.07.'10
FACTS
By an application of 17-3-2009 Shri Manohar Singh of Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, applied to the CPIO, Dy. Director, Intelligence Bureau seeking the following information:
"A. 1975 Seniority List of JIOs-I (Tech) in which the intelligence Bureau was under legal obligation to place the applicant in view of Hon'ble Court's specific orde4rs. However, the applicant was discriminated and his human rights were violated since he was not placed in the above list.
B. Inter-se seniority list of ACIOs-II (Tech) in which the applicant was not shown on promotion as ACIO-II (Tech) in compliance of Hon'ble Court's orders. Thus, the applicant has been discriminated thereby violating his human rights.
C. Without prejudice to above contentions, the applicant was, again, discriminated and his human rights violated, when the department, vide order dated 4.12.2006, illegally and unilaterally placed him in the seniority list of 'Workshop' cadre and was also shown below S/Sh. Jagan Nath Sharma and Jit Ram Yadav, who were regularized w.e.f. 27.1.1982, vide order even no. dated 26.2.1982. On the other hand ,the applicant had been regularized much earlier i.e. w.e.f. 11.5.1976 (though this date should have been 24.12.1974 in view of Hon'ble Court's orders).
D. Copy of the President's approval or Ministry's concurrence with respect to applicant's permanent absorption in NTPC w.e.f. 1.4.1984 to ensure that the applicant was not discriminated in any manner vis-a-visa other Govt. servants getting permanently absorbed in Public Sector Undertakings."
To this Shri Manohar Singh received a response from CPIO, Shri Manoj K. Lal, Dy. Director, IB dated 30-3-09 refusing the information as below:
"As per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 chapter VI, Section 24 (1) and Second Schedule ,the Intelligence Bureau is exempted from providing any information/ detail on the subject."1
The fee of Rs. 10/- was also returned. Shri Manohar Singh has then moved an appeal before Jt. Director (E) Shri S.S. Sidhu pleading on the one hand "that kind attention is invited to proviso of section 24 (1) of the RTI Act under which information pertaining to corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded but shall be provided after approval of the Central Information Commission and said information shall be provided within 45 days from the date of receipt of request", and on the other praying as follows:
"6. That CPIO has not appreciated the facts that the information sought by the appellant is not related of Official Secrets Act. The information sought by the appellant is related to service grievance upon which IB has also relied in its counter affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C ) No. 8676/2007. therefore, the stand taken by CPIO (IB) is malafide, illegal arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice.
7. That the said RTI application has been submitted based on advice received from the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner in the presence of IB's officials."
This appeal was also dismissed on grounds identical to those relied upon by CPIO by Appellate Authority Shri S.S. Sidhu, Jt. Director, with the following order:
"There are no grounds for appeal against decision of nodal Officer/ CPIO (Deputy Director, IB) in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, as IB is exempted under Second Schedule of Section 24 (1) of RTI Act, 2005 unless allegations relate to corruption or human rights violation."
The fee of Rs. 10/- was again returned. This has brought Shri Manohar Singh in his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"A) That the respondent be directed to provide the information as per RTI request, B) That the present appeal be allowed with cost and C) Any other relief as deemed fit."
The grounds on which he has moved this appeal are as below:
"i) That despite of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's orders, Intelligence Bureau has been repeatedly violating the human rights of the appellant by discriminating him.
ii) That discrimination constitutes human rights violations under articles 2 and 23 of the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' by denying hum and his family 'an existence worthy of human dignity'.2
iii) That refusal by the CPIO to supply the information under the garb of section 24 (1) of the RTI Act is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the RTI Act.
iv) That the appellate authority committed serious error in not appreciating the facts that there is clear violation of human rights and/ or fundamental rights in refusing to supply the information to the appellant."
The appeal was heard on 7-7-2010. The following are present. Appellant Shri Manohar Singh Respondents Shri K. C. Meena, IPS, Dy. Director Shri S. P. Dubey, Assistant Director Shri K.C. Meena, Dy. Director, IB invited our attention to a submission made by letter of 22-5-2009 in response to our appeal notice, which does not appear to have been received, in which he has submitted as follows:
"A similar appeal to the CIC dated 4.11.2008 of Shri Manohar Singh was considered by the CIC in the hearing on 13.3.2009 and a Decision Notice dismissing the above appeal was passed by the CIC on 13.3.2009 (copy enclosed). This is for information and necessary action at your end."
A copy has now been placed on file. In the order referred to we have in our decision of 13-3-2009 dismissed thee appeal of Shri Manohar Singh as follows:
"Denial of seniority list to an individual can hardly be construed as violation of human rights under even the most liberal definition of the term. Appellant has obviously sought to inveigle an element of such allegations into his first appeal as an afterthought so as to ensure that this is somehow brought within the purview of the RTI Act. The application is basically concerning only an administrative matter of personnel management and is in no way a matter concerning any allegation of human rights violation. This appeal is, therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed."
We also find that the application on which this decision was taken was with regard to recruitment of 63 JIOs -1 (10). In that case Shri S.S. Sidhu Jt. Director in his capacity as Appellate Authority had already dwelt upon the issue of human rights violation and ordered as follows:
"The above application has been carefully considered and it has been noticed that there is no involvement of human rights violation on the issue raised by you. Hence, it is regretted that 3 the information sought cannot be provided in view of the IB's exemption under Chapter VI, Section 24 (1) and Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005."
Appellant Shri Manohar Singh, on the other hand, produced a copy of the order of High Court of Delhi, LPA No. 216/1980 dated 5-11-1999. In this order Hon'ble Ms. Usha Mehra J and Hon'ble Madan B. Lokur J. had held as follows:
"We hold that the appellant belonged to the Technical cadre which was a part of the W/T Wing of the IB."
Appellant Shri Manohar Singh submitted that the orders of the High Court had been violated and despite the fact that he was senior most on the list of JIOs (Tech.) he was not given promotion, which implies discrimination.
DECISION NOTICE The fact that the application presently under appeal before us is a request related to service grievance stands admitted by appellant Shri Manohar Singh in his first appeal as quoted by us above. His plea that the orders of the High Court of Delhi have not been complied with by the IB is outside the scope and jurisdiction of this Commission, since it is only the court which has passed the order which can ensure its compliance and penalise failure to do so. In this case appellant Shri Manohar Singh has been altogether unable to substantiate any grounds for discrimination either on grounds of race, religion, region, creed or gender, which could constitute a ground for ascribing such discrimination to deliberate violation of human rights. In the present case we are constrained to agree with the respondents that no case of human right violation has been made out and that this is a service matter of which the learned High Court has taken cognisance. Remedy for any discrimination perceived by appellant Shri Manohar Singh, therefore, will have to be sought from the High Court and not from this Commission. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
4(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 7-7-2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 7-7-2010 5