Central Information Commission
Shweta Verma vs Department Of Defence Production on 12 October, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000192/DODFP, dated 09.10.2017
Ms. Shweta Verma v. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Department of Defence
Production
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI: 12.10.2015 FA: undated SA: 08.06.2016
CPIO: 02.11.2015,
FAAO: 05.04.2016 Hearing: 09.10.2017
26.11.2015
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), Department of Defence Production, seeking information on eight points, including, inter alia, (i) the names of the Permanent Seconded Service Officers (PSSOs- working in the DGQA) at the rank of Colonel and Lieutenant (Lt.) Colonel, and (ii) the details pertaining to the Rules of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) and the Ministry of Defence for deciding the eligibility criterion or the qualifications of the army officers for being considered for absorption in the DGQA.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that she was not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO as the information sought was stated to be exempted from disclosure under Section 7 (9) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant is also discontented with the Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) which had upheld the reply provided by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information sought for by her.
Page | 1 Hearing:
3. Shri Shailesh Kumar Verma and Col. Yogesh C. Pandey, the authorized representatives of the appellant, Ms. Shweta Verma, and Shri Chandra Shekhar, Director and CPIO, DGQA- Headquarters, were present in person.
4. The authorized representative of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") submitted that he had sought the details pertaining to the Rules for deciding the eligibility criterion for permanent secondment in the Army. However, the information sought by him has been incorrectly withheld by the respondent organization by taking refuge under Sections 7 (9) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant, with respect to point no. 2 of the RTI application, requested the Commission to afford him an opportunity of inspection of the relevant records. With respect to point nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application, the appellant urged that the information sought would lead to the enhancing of transparency in the appointments made in the DGQA in the matter of permanent secondment and therefore, it is imperative to know the authority and the correspondences whereby the said appointments were made. The appellant, with respect to point no. 7 of the RTI application, submitted that misleading information has been furnished by the respondent organization.
5. The respondent submitted that the CPIO's reply dated 26.11.2015 enclosed the letter dated 02.11.2015 whereby point wise and complete information was furnished to the appellant. The respondent, with respect to point no. 2 of the RTI application, submitted that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous and collating and compiling it would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. In view of this, the respondent stated that the appellant may avail an opportunity of inspection of the records/documents pertaining to his RTI application and procure the photocopies of the relevant records/documents.
Page | 2 The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide its Order dated 05.04.2016 had upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that incomplete information, in response to the RTI application, was furnished to the appellant by the respondent organization. The Commission also notes the respondents' submissions that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and collating and compiling it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the respondent organization. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO, DGQA:
a. With respect to the information sought on point no. 2 of the RTI application, to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records and also to allow him to take photo copies of requisite documents, after severing any information which is not disclosable under the RTI Act, free of cost, up to twenty pages; and b. With respect to point nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application, provide the authority and the notings/ the correspondences whereby the absorptions in pursuance of the permanent secondment were made by the respondent organization, to the appellant.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO, DGQA, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page | 3 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Department of Defence Production, Block- G, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001
2. Ms. Shweta Verma, Page | 4