Central Information Commission
Priyothos Majumder vs Department Of Defence Production on 16 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033
Priyothos Majumder ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Directorate of
Ordnance, Kolkata ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.09.2024 FA : 27.10.2024 SA : 16.12.2024
CPIO : 23.10.2024 FAO : 22.11.2024 Hearing : 29.01.2026
Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. DFUKOL rescinded the approval for the promotion of 42 vacancies in the MCM/Machinist grade at GSF for the vacancy year 2023 and requested a review DPC (DFUKOL letter No. 015/DPC/MCM/2023/GSF/DFUKOL, dt. 02.08.2023).
This implies that all previous approvals for promotion in the MCM/Machinist grade were canceled by DFUKOL. Some of these industrial employees (19 nos) were promoted through the review DPC (FO No. - 3855, dt. 26.12.2023 & FO No.
- 3871, dt. 26.12.2023), while the remaining (25 nos) were promoted to CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033 Page 1 of 6 MCM/Machinist at GSF through the regular DPC (FO No. - 3, dt. 02.01.2023). Please provide detailed information, orders, rules and instructions clearly stating whether employees can be promoted in the regular DPC after a review DPC has been conducted.
2. Please provide the information/documents sent from DFUKOL/DoO(C&S) to GSF for review DPC approval, required to fill unforeseen vacancies in the MCM/Machinist (in 2023) grade through promotion. (note sheet no. - 107/052/HRM/DPC/Prom, Dt. 12.10.2023 & Review DPC minutes no. - nil, Dt. 14.11.2023).
3. The DPC guidelines (DoPT No. - 22011/5/86-Estt.(D), dated 10.04.1989) state that -
a) Under Section 18.2 - A review DPC should consider only those persons who were eligible as on the date of meeting of original DPC. That is, persons who become eligible on a subsequent date should not be considered. Such cases will, of course, come up for consideration by a subsequent regular DPC.
b) Under section 6.4.2. (I) state that unforeseen vacancies (due to death, VR, etc.) need to be filled through a supplementary DPC. However, the GSF authority conducted a review DPC to fill these unforeseen vacancies.
Please provide detailed information / orders/instructions stating whether unforeseen vacancies (due to death, VR, etc.) should be filled through a review DPC or a supplementary DPC.
4. The DPC guidelines (DoPT No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D), dated 10.04.1989) also state (sub section 2.6) that an SC/ST officer needs to be present at the DPC or review DPC when filling 30 or more vacancies.
Please provide detailed information/ orders, clearly stating whether an SC/ST officer was present at GSF in the review DPC (year 2023) in the MCM/Machinist CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033 Page 2 of 6 grade
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1, 3 & 4 - the SRO of relevant Industrial Employee Cadres are available in the Website ddpdoo.gov.in and guidelines regarding DPC is available in Website doptcirculars.nic.in. Hence, rules orders, which are followed in instant case, are already available in public domain thus excluded from purview of RTI Act 2005. The applicant choose some specific parts of the orders and trying to elicit justification. The Public Authorities under the RTI Act are not mandated to provide the justifications/interpretations of Government Orders. To provide justification is relied upon the Judicial Authorities. Point No. 2 - DoO (C&S) FUKOL Letter No: 015/DPC/MCM/GSF/2023/ DFUKOL, Dt: 15.12.2023 is available in 02 pages. As per RTI Fee and Cost Rules, you are requested to submit Rs. 4/- (Rs. 2/- x 2 A4 pages) by IPO, DD or any approved means under RTI Act 2005 in favor of Field Unit Kolkata, payable at Kolkata."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.11.2024 stated as under: -
"An unsigned piece of document was forwarded to this office vide the above referred letter mentioning it as a first appeal w.r.t application of Shri Priyothos Majumder dt.30.09.2024. In this regard, please note that -
i) No letter of CPIO/DoO(C&S) dtd 23.10.2024 as mentioned in your present letter was received in this Office.
ii) The unsigned document is without any specific date mentioned and whether it was received through RTI MIS Portal or otherwise and on which date is not CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033 Page 3 of 6 mentioned in your referred letter dt.05.11.2024.
iii) Further, it is seen that CPIO/DFUKOL vide his letter of even no.
dt.23.10.2024 to applicant (under intimation to your office) had requested to furnish cost of documents as per RTI Act 2005, There is no mention of any such deposit by the applicant either in your letter or in the unsigned document. As the authenticity of this unsigned document cannot be established, no further process at this end is possible. Hence, your letter along with the unsigned document is returned herewith, unactioned. You are requested to please check the above-mentioned points before forwarding any such document, further to this office."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.12.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Sapan Baruah, Staff Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent authority had not provided adequate information relating to the process of review of DPC conducted by the respondent authority. He further acknowledged that although he had received certain documents including promotional recommendations after depositing the demanded fees, the same were not satisfactory. He prayed before the Commission for disclosure of complete and accurate information.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that apart from the information given by the erstwhile CPIO, the FAA had also provided detailed information to the appellant, as available under their custody. The CPIO further explained that the guidelines relating to DPC review process were already available in the public domain. However, the appellant has expressed dissatisfaction and pointed out CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033 Page 4 of 6 discrepancies with the documents received by him, which cannot be addressed before this forum.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that adequate information has been provided by the CPIO as well as by the FAA. Further, the appellant has insisted on resolution of his grievance relating to review of DPC proceedings which cannot be addressed as per the RTI Act and examination of the said issue falls outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Appellant is at liberty to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. The CPIO having confirmed that the requisite information has been furnished, as per records available under their custody, the Commission finds no ground for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 13.02.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Field Unit Kolkata, Directorate of Ordnance (C&S), Ayudh Bhawan, 10-A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700001 CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033 Page 5 of 6
2. Priyothos Majumder CIC/DODFP/A/2024/141033 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)