Central Information Commission
Maj. Gen. Gaurab Roy vs Directorate General Of Quality ... on 21 February, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DGOQA/A/2022/655582
Maj. Gen. Gaurab Roy (Retd) ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
D. G. Quality Assurance
Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.07.2022 FA : 31.08.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 22.08.2022 FAO : 06.09.2022 Hearing : 14.02.2024
Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:
a) "A copy of all correspondence and documents received from Brig Vikram Ahooja in connection with his complaint against me regarding forgery of signature.
b) Any other document received from Brig Vikram Ahooja wherein my name is mentioned in 'any' regard.Page 1 of 5
c) Copy of One Man Inquiry report conducted in 2018-2019 by Shri Amit Kumar (then Director in Dte of Adm) with respect to CSD canteen, CQAS Credit Cooperative Society and Defence Inspection Employees Cooperative Housing Society. In case a copy cannot be provided, I may be allowed to peruse the same in your office.
d) A copy of all documents received from the court of XI ACMM, Secunderabad to include initial information, copy of application/ petition, reply submitted by DGQA, any other information/document received (Cr No. 125/2019, CC 616/2022 refers).
e) All replies furnished with respect to Para 1 (d) above.
f) A copy of any other correspondence on the above-mentioned case to Army/DGQA estt or Civil Court/Police/Admin."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.08.2022 enclosing the information received from DGQA/Adm-4 as under:-
Para 1(a) to (e): "Not held specifically."
Para 1(f): "Following letters likely to pertain to the info sought are enclosed.
(a) DGQA (Grievance Cell) letter No C/85606 /DGQA/GC/PC-803 dt 13 Apr 2017.
(b) MSQAA letter No MSQA/107/posting dt 04 Apr 2017.
(e) DQA(R&S) letter No 78846/SRM/Ser-Pers /DQA(R&S)/TC/89A dt 13 Mar 2013.
(f) Brig V Ahooja application No MSQA/VA/18 dt 21 Nov 2016 addressed to Secy DP."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2022 alleging that only partial information has been received as the same pertains to only Adm-4 Section while he has requested from information from Adm (Vig Cell) also. The FAA vide order dated 06.09.2022 observed that DGQA/Adm-4 and Adm (Vig Cell) have not provided separate replies to the RTI Application and the HQ Page 2 of 5 CPIO forwarded the reply of DGQA-Adm-4 without noticing this fact, therefore, the HQ CPIO was directed to provide a para-wise reply to the Appellant within two weeks.
4. Subsequently, the HQ CPIO replied to the Appellant vide letter dated '26.09.2021' (which appears to be a typographical error and ought to be read as 26.09.2022) stating as under:
"3. Your Appeal under reference has been examined in detail with concerned public authorities in DGQA. It is stated that information as available had already been provided Towards the order of 1st Appellate Authority, DGQA/Adm-4 vide their note No A/98661/RTI/6093/DGQA/Adm-4 dated 19 Sep 2022 and DGQA/Vig Cell note No A/97401/DQA(R&S)/Complaint/GR/DGQA (Vig Cell) dated 20 Sep 2022 have provided additional information. Copies of the same are enclosed herewith for your information."
The reply of DGQA/Vig Cell note No A/97401/DQA(R&S)/Complaint/GR/DGQA (Vig Cell) dated 20.09.2022 informed the Appellant on para 1(b) that the information sought for is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and for the remaining queries it was stated that a case is pending investigation with the Court of XI Addl CMM Secunderabad, hence no information can be provided as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
5. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Ramawtar Meena, Dy. Dir. & CPIO along with Manoj Kumar Singh and Hemlata Madhavan, Deemed CPIOs attended the hearing in person.
7. The Respondent reiterated the following contents of his written submissions dated 07.02.2024:
"(a) This RTI application was filed by the then Brig Gourab Roy on 29 Jul 2022 who has retired as Maj Gen on superannuation on 31 Aug 2022 from HQ DGQA, New Delhi.Page 3 of 5
(b) DGQA Officer Brig Vikram Ahooja was undergoing Gen Court Marshal since 2019 for financial irregularities at CQA(S) Secunderabad from 18 Sep 2009 to 20 Dec 2013. Brig Gourab Roy was a prosecution witness in the said Gen Court Marshal. He was also the Controller from 21 Dec 2013 to 18 Oct 2017.
(c) In Aug 2019, Brig Ahooja filed a complaint in the court of XI ACMM Secunderabad against the then Brig Gourab Roy.
xxx
9. As the matter is sub-judice at present, the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h). Some relevant records/documents has already been provided to the applicant vide CPIO letter dated 22 Aug 2022 and 31 Aug 2022.
10. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant had mentioned in his 1st appeal that he will defend his case in court hence document is required under RTI Act.
'In this connection it is submitted that the legal assistance is being provided to applicant to defend his case in court and all requisite paper/ documents related to the case has been provided to the Govt Counsellor to defend the said case.' Refer DGQA/Vigilance(deemed CPIO) note dated 06 Feb 2024 (Annexure-IV)"
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the reply provided by the Adm-4 Section under letter of 22.08.2022 appropriately dealt with the RTI Application and there ought to have been a certain level of congruence in the reply provided by the Vigilance Cell with that of the Adm-4 Section as two Sections of the same public authority cannot be providing diametrically opposite responses to the same RTI Application, where one Section opines that specific information is not held while the other Section opines that exemption of Section 8(1)(h) ought to be invoked. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the information sought for in the RTI Application is largely conjecturing the availability of documents which renders the queries as not strictly conforming to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, while also asking for information related to a third party. While the reply of Adm-4 reflects on Page 4 of 5 the unspecific nature of the records sought for, the reply of Vigilance Cell mindlessly invokes Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without even explaining what investigation is apprehended to get impeded by the disclosure of the unspecified amount of documents.
9. In view of the foregoing observations and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or specify his requirement of information, the Commission is not in a position to order for any relief in the matter. However, the Nodal CPIO is directed to ensure in the future that reply to the RTI Applications from different Sections of the Respondent office do not tender conflicting opinion and facts, thus causing unwarranted confusion and inconvenience to the RTI applicants.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 20.02.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/O. Defence,
Director General of Quality Assurance,
Dy. Director (Budget & RTI) & Nodal CPIO,
(P.I. Cell), H.Q., 2nd Floor, B-Block,
Defence Office Complex, Africa Avenue, Sarojini Nagar, Delhi-110023
2. Maj. Gen. Gaurab Roy (Retd) Page 5 of 5