Central Information Commission
Akhilesh Shukla vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2023/637288
Akhilesh Shukla .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Defence,
D (Vigilance-MES & BRO), Room
No. 136, Kashmir House, Rajaji
Marg, New Delhi - 110011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024
Date of Decision : 26.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 21.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 04.05.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"Order bearing letter number 13011/14/2020/D(Vig-M&B)/364 dated 12 Apr 2023 was issued by Ministry of Defence D (Vigilance -MES & BRO). In this regard following information may be provided.
a) Copies of noting sheet wherein decision of disciplinary Authority has been obtained.
b) Copies of noting sheet wherein first stage advice of CVC was sought and has been obtained before issue of Charge memo vide letter no C-
13011/14/2020/D(Vig-M&B)/1279 dated 17 Dec 2000.
c) Copies of noting sheet where the representation of Akhilesh Shukla made against issue of Charge memo vide letter No AS/24/Meerut TBO dt 10 Feb 2021 was disposed off by the disciplinary authority.
d) Copy of recommendation made by E in C and DG MAP for issue of penalty after completion of enquiry on charge memorandum.
e) Copy of Staff Court of inquiry (without enclosures) conducted on Contract Agreement No DGMAP/PH-II/PKG-II/Army2 of 2009-10 against para 04 Of CTE Observation."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 01.06.2023 stating as under:
"Para 3(a), 3(b) & 3(c): As per Central Information Commission's Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017, file notings of vigilance files are exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Para 3(d): Copy of E-in-C Branch ID No. 78650/3608/2020/WC/EID (60) (Vol-III)/18 dated 27.06.2022 (total 05 pages) is enclosed herewith.
Para 3(e): There is no Staff Court of Inquiry conducted by this office against para 4 of CVE observation in CA No. DGMAP/PH- II/PKG-II/Army2 of 2009-10. Therefore, information on this para may be treated as nil."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 21.07.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 6Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Dalip Singh, CPIO and Shri Chandra Prakash Shukla, Section Officer, appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he has been awarded a major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1964 and has been awarded penalty of down gradation of two increments for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide MoD D (Vigilance-MES & BRO) letter No 13011/14/2020/D(Vig-M&B)/364 dt 12 April 2023. Therefore, he sought aforesaid information. The appellant pleaded that reply given by the respondent was incomplete as information sought on point Nos. (a), (b) & (c) of the RTI application was not provided.
The appellant further submitted that the case in which he was awarded the penalty did not pertain to area of his jurisdiction. He contended that the officer who was directly responsible for the process of decision making has also been awarded the same penalty.
The appellant informed that same penalty has been awarded to four officers although the gravity of offence varied due to different area of responsibilities. The final decision-making authority i.e. DGMAP have not been awarded any punishment. He pleaded that exemption claimed by the respondent is unfounded and hence, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information to the appellant.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 01.06.2023 wherein they provided the information sought on point No. (d) was provided to the appellant.
The respondent further submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 29.08.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"That Shri Akhilesh Shukla has raised the primary issue of providing the noting sheets of vigilance case file, which was denied in being a vigilance Page 3 of 6 case on the basis of Hon'ble Central Information Commission Order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 wherein Hon'ble Commission has directed that the file notings in vigilance file are exempted from disclosure as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
That the second issue agitated by Shri Akhilesh Shukla is to provide copy of Court of Inquiry report on para 4 of CTE observations in CA No. DGMAP/PH-II/PKG/Army2 of 2009-10. In this regard it is submitted that the Court of Inquiry CA No. DGMAP/PH-II/PKG/Army2 of 2009-10 has been convened by Army authorities i.e. GoC-in-C, Central Command and the office of CPIO has not been provided with complete Court of Inquiry report, except some extract of Court of Inquiry report that so in confidential nature. Hence, Army authority is appropriate to provide this information. Further, it is submitted that at the time of providing information, CPIO was under impression that the said Court of Inquiry is conducted only on para 7 of CTE Observations and not on Para 4. But it is found that the Court of Inquiry has also made its findings on para 4 of CTE observation and if Hon'ble Commission directs, the copy of extracts of Court of Inquiry Report, available with CPIO shall be provided to the appellant.
4. That, rest of information was duly provided to Shri Akhilesh Shukla, the applicant against his RTI Application.
5. Hence, in submission of the present Appeal before Hon'ble Commission, it is submitted that the case file of the Shri Akhilesh Shukla is a Vigilance Case file wherein total 06 officers are involved and 04 officers, including Shri Akhilesh Shukla has been awarded penalty and case of remaining 02 officers is under submission with Union Public Service Commission for decision on penalty. Therefore, being a vigilance case, file notings are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act in compliance to the Hon'ble Central Information Commission Order No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017, Order No. CIC/MODEF/A/2023/649340 and Order No. CIC/MODEF/A/2023/613374 dated 10.05.2024."Page 4 of 6
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply has been given to the appellant vide letter dated 01.06.2023. Further additional clarification was given by the respondent during the hearing particularly on point No. (e) of the RTI application which was taken on record in the above paras.
As regards point Nos. (a), (b) & (c) of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that note-sheets sought were confidential in nature and disclosure of such information would endanger the life and identity of the concerned officers; thus, they expressed their inability to provide the same under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Perusal of the records reveal that case file of the Shri Akhilesh Shukla is a Vigilance Case file wherein total 06 officers are involved and 04 officers, including the appellant has been awarded penalty and case of remaining 02 officers is under submission with Union Public Service Commission for decision on penalty. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to direct the respondent to provide copies of the file noting to the appellant.
Further, it may not be out of place to mention that the procedures of disciplinary proceedings have adequate safeguards to protect the interest of charged official and whenever disciplinary action is initiated, the appellant was free to raise all those points in the departmental inquiry. Thereafter, the appeal procedure within the department and finally the appellant was free to challenge the same in the court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant may not convert the right to information into a de novo inquiry. If the appellant was not provided complete documents or principle of natural justice was not followed by the disciplinary authority or aggrieved with the decision of the disciplinary authority or the disciplinary case appellate authority, the appellant has a right to file an appeal before an appropriate forum.
As regards the noting sheet the Respondent relies upon a judgment dated 19.01.2017, passed by predecessor bench of the Hon'ble Commission in the Page 5 of 6 matter of Shri Satya Vijay Singh vs. CPIO, CVC bearing no.
CIC/SB/A/2015/000649, wherein the Hon'ble Commission has held as under:
"...In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005.Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act."
The Commission agrees with the stand of the Respondent as the ratio applies to the instant case as well. As regards the other points of RTI Application, an appropriate response has been furnished by the Respondent as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Room No. 138, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi - 110011 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)