Central Information Commission
Yerramsetti Giridhar vs Defence Research And Development ... on 29 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DRADO/A/2024/642392
Yerramsetti Giridhar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Defence Research & Development Laboratory,
Hyderabad, Telangana ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.07.2024 FA : 01.09.2024 SA : 21.09.2024
CPIO : 20.08.2024 FAO : 13.09.2024 Hearing : 28.08.2025
Date of Decision: 28.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"Myself, Y Giridhar served as Scientist G, retired from DRDL/HYD on 1/07/2023. RTI info is required as fraud, impersonation, forfeiting rights happened while delaying remarks on APARS and denial of Assessees rights on formation of APAR Review Committee under aegis of AA of APARS. RTI info on APARs requested from Chairman DRDO as per Swamy book Confidential Reports-Disclosing APARs under RTI Act, para 70, page 74 and 76. The requested RTI info is pertaining to total 6 APARs from 2017 to 2022.Page 1 of 8
1) RTI info from Chairman DRDO that DRDL/Hyd to provide recorded reasons for DRDL not issuing APAR for Year 2022. Myself served full year 2022/23 at DRDL.
2) RTI info from Chairman DRDO that DRDL/Hyd to give names of the nominations for filling IO, RO and AA for APAR2020 and APAR2021. Shri GAS Murthy and Shri BHVSN Murty were impersonated all three positions IO, RO and AA. The defaulted was Shir Patrick Dsilva (IO) by not processing APAR 2021 and 2022. He also prevented Shri Dasharath Ram (RO) from his role by not forwarding on-time. Further, both APARs were never sent to the actual nominated Shri MSR Prasad (AA).
3) Requesting RTI info. from Chairman DRDO that RCI/Hyd to give names of the nominations for filling IO, RO and AA for APAR2017/18/19. For APAR2017, Shri G Krishna Rao impersonated IO, Shri BV Rao impersonated RO, Shri BHVSN Murty impersonated AA. Actual nominated IO/RO were forfeit rights on APAR by exceeding DOPT stipulated date 31st Aug 2018. Later, Vigilance office/RCI recovery from Shri G Krishna Rao, holding APAR2017 beyond cutoff date 24.08.2018.
For APAR-2018 Shri BV Rao had impersonated RO. Shri BHVSN Murty had impersonated AA. Further, Shri BHVSN Murty had held back APAR 2018, so that Assessee misses his promotion chance, in spite Assessment board required fully disposed APAR 2018. As a fall out, fraud by Shri BHVSN Murty, Assessees name was not appeared in the promotion assessment list. For Year 2019 had two APARs filled and submitted. the First APAR- 2019Dt06/08/2019 was suppressed by Shri BV Rao. On Second APAR2019Dt20/12/2019, again Shri BV Rao had incompletely filled. The RO, Shri BHVSN Murty also incompletely confirmed IO entries. On APAR Page 2 of 8 representation, the AA (Shri MSR Prasad) did not further process and sent to DRDO-Hq, suppressed Assessees APAR representation. Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta sent both APARS 2017 and 2018 to DRDOHq, bypassing actual AA (Shri MSR Prasad).
Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta had kept full archive of complainants representations on APARs in office of RCI.
Giving further evidence that Shri BHVSN Murty/Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta had formed GRC on APAR, suppressing formation of APAR Representation Committee.
Director RCI Shri BHVSN Murty, who himself impersonated the actual nominated AA (Shri MRS Prasad) had scuttled the formation of ARAR representation committee, to protect himself from forgery of AA position."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"You are hereby informed that DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of 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 violation.
Therefore, your request for information does not come under the purview of the above-mentioned provisions. Therefore, your application is rejected under Section 24 (1) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 13.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.09.2024 stating inter alia as under:
"The complainant submission to CIC is that DRDO cannot claim any except, as the RTI information asked is for ascertaining Corrupt Practices followed by their nominated Page 3 of 8 officials while processing APARs. These Corrupt Practices had affected service prospects of complainant by not following due-norm of DOPT APAR rules 2008-09 onwards. It is all affected the working environment of Complainant during his service as well as suppression of candidature for next grade promotion 2018 onwards.
The summary of the RTI information sorted is as follows:
1. The recorded information of not raising and collecting APAR for year 2022/23 by DRDL/DRDO
2. Who were the authorized nominees of IO/RO/AA for 5 APARS for 2017, 18, 19, 20/21, 21/22.
3. Who had processed for IO/RO/AA for above APARS by impersonation of authorized nominees
4. Was APAR 2017 processed within stipulated time of Aug 31, 2018
5. Whether IO/RO of ARAR 2017 were defaulted and forfeited rights on APAR as per the DOPT Office Memorandum No:21011/02/2009-Estt(A) Dt 16th Feb 2009 Title:
Timely preparation and proper maintenance of ACRS and as per Chapter 5 (Timely completion) APAR norms 2008-2009 onwards.
6. The recorded information on not forming APAR Representation Committee against Complainant representations on APARs from 2017 onwards for the last 5 APARS.
The Chairman DRDO is the competent Authority on APARs and RTI information is requested from Chairman DRDO to provide to CIC."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent. Deepak Mishra, Scientist-'G' & CPIO along with Hitesh Kumar, CPIO, RAC attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant relied on the grounds of the second appeal as mentioned above and urged for relief to be ordered in the matter.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
Page 4 of 88. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the material on record does not suggest any allegation of corruption or human rights violation in the matter, for which reason, the Commission finds no reason to invoke the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to allow for the disclosure of any information. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provision of Section 24(1) is reproduced as under:
"24. Act not to apply to certain organizations--
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:..."
In this context, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India & Ors [W.P.(C) 83/2014] dated 03.02.2014, which held as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view 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...." [Emphasis Supplied] The said judgment was later upheld by a division bench of the Court in LPA 229/2014 on 11.03.2014.
9. Pertinently so, the RTI queries do not even strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has asked for clarifications and reasons/justification. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions Page 5 of 8 under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the Page 6 of 8 "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Page 7 of 8Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 28.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Defence Research & Development Laboratory, DRDO, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Missile Complex, P.O. - Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500058
2. Yerramsetti Giridhar Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)