Central Information Commission
Ira Chopra vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 21 January, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626487 with
CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626486
CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626485
CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626484
Ira Chopra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Office of the Controller General of
Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt. - 110010
Date of Hearing : 19.01.2026
Date of Decision : 21.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL
Note:- The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed
together for disposal through common order as the parties are
common and queries raised in the RTI application are similar in
nature
Case Date of CPIO Reply First appeal FAA Complaint
No. RTI dated order dated
Page 1 of 19
626487 12.06.2024 08.07.2024 NA NA 20.06.2024
626486 01.06.2024 27.06.2024 NA NA 20.06.2024
626485 01.06.2024 27.06.2024 NA NA 20.06.2024
626484 01.06.2024 26.06.2024 NA NA 20.06.2024
Information sought:
1. Complaint No: CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626487 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2024 citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through 7 points under para 19 of her application:-
"
(1) Having regards to "No Dues Certificate (NDC)", it is trite that in view of peculiar situation of announcement for closure of unit/ establishment, Shri Anil Kumar Chopra was not required to hand over charge of his inventory items to another incumbent in respect of the asset inventory items, having regards to Rule 216 of GFR 2017 (transfer of charge of goods, materials etc). Please provide copy of Permanent Issue Vouchers (PIV) w.r.t. the asset inventory items in lieu of I.A.F.Z (Large) 2096 as per the statutory provisions issued in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, which was watched and vouched before pay-drop on the TULIP platform by the designated controller authorized for this purpose at Delhi AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA.
(2) Certified copy of the document establishing "proof of service"
repeat "proof of service" of any PIV (including PIV stated in 1 above) created since Feb 2021 which was served / communicated to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, and which was watched and vouched by controller of defence accounts before pay drop on TULIP AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA. (3) Certified copy of the "Audit report" on the usage / disposal of Govt. of India "asset inventory" in name of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra (as per the stock register) which was previously acquired (without Page 2 of 19 any notice) by the employer through Inventory Recovery Board constituted at LASTEC, Delhi in terms of order No. DOP/07/78005/M/01 dated 21.06.2021, which was watched and vouched by controller of defence accounts at Delhi before closure of unit accounting code of LASTEC AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA.
(4) Certified copy of the person specific explicit authorization / approval order issued under the signatures of controlling officer of LASTEC authorizing "joining time" in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, by its quantification and specifying date on which the charged officer was required to move in terms of the statutory regulation 5(1) of CCS (Joining Time) Rules 1979, which was watched and vouched before pay-drop in TULIP by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA.
(5) Certified copy of the person specific explicit authorization / approval order issued under the signatures of controlling officer of LASTEC sanctioning / authorizing/quantizing admissible joining time with reference to the distance for regulating joining time pay
- Rule 5(4) read with Rule 7 (Note 1-GSR 229(E) dated 27.03.2015) of CCS (Joining Time) Rules, 1979 in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, which was watched and vouched before pay-drop in TULIP by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA. (6) Having regards to the unilateral, unsigned, unauthorized SOS communication dated 09.02.2021 (used to stop for reporting for work at LASTEC before expiry of joining time and during the duty period), please provide authenticated version of "proof of service"
of the SOS communication as above with "name of the official & official designation of the issuing authority" clearly stated therein, which was watched and vouched before pay-drop in TULIP by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA. (7) Having regards to the unilateral, unsigned, unauthorized SOS communication dated 09.02.2021 referred in 6 above, please provide "name of the authority" under whose approval was it created by stating in the body of the said communication "this issues with approval of", which was watched and vouched before Page 3 of 19 pay-drop in TULIP by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi AND at another instance when complaint cum concordant representation No. AKC/PERS/2023/26 dated 06.07.2023 was receipted by CGDA.
If afore-said information / documents as sought in 1 to 7 is not available, you may state "no such recorded information is available", and such an answer will suffice in respect of information sought in the present RTI."
The CPIO reply vide letter dated 08.07.2024 is on record, stating as under:
"Para 1 to 18: No information sought. So no reply is anticipated.
Para19:
1. This information does not come under the jurisdiction of DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House and PCDA(R&D) New Delhi. The same may please be obtained from concerned branch of DRDO.
2. No such information/document/data is available either with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House or with PCDA(R&D) New Delhi.
3. This information does not come under the jurisdiction of DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House and PCDA(R&D) New Delhi.
4. It is not clear from the RTI application what information has been sought for. Hence this office is unable to provide any information.
5. No specific information has been sought for, hence no reply is anticipated
6. This information does not come under the jurisdiction of DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House and PCDA(R&D) New Delhi. The desired information may be available with the administrative department of the employee
7. It is not clear from the RTI application what information has been sought for. Hence no reply is anticipated"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on ground that information sought by her was not provided within 48 Hours under Section 7(i) of the RTI Act.
Page 4 of 192. Complaint No: CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626486 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2024 citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through 14 points under para 19 of her application:-
"
(1) Having regards to the dissemination of the dak for onward transmission to PCDA (R&D) R.K. Puram and DCDA (R&D) Metcalfe House for creation of report in wake of letter dated 03.10.2023, please provide respective Outward Dak IDs (with date) as recorded / allocated by the Record Section (or any other authorized section) in TULIP as per the Dak category available in Project Tulip or otherwise an outward dak despatch id (with date) from o/o CGDA w.r.t. said letter dated 03.10.2023.
(2) Having regards to the said letter dated 03.10.2023, if the dispatch of the same to PCDA and DCDA has not been recorded in the TULIP platform, then please provide certified copy of the relevant page of the outward dispatch register maintained by the record section /office of CGDA depicting entries relatable to dispatch of the said letter dated 03.10.2023.
(3) Having regards to the said letter dated 03.10.2023, please provide date on which it was received by PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D). (4) Please provide Inward Dak ID (with date) as recorded / allocated by the Record Section (or any other authorized section) in TULIP as per the Dak category available in Project Tulip or otherwise an acknowledgement ID (with date) w.r.t. said letter dated 03.10.2023, in the office of PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D). (5) If the receipt of the letter dated 03.10.2023 by PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D) has not been recorded in the TULIP platform, then please provide certified copy of the relevant page of the inward dak diary receipt register maintained by the record section / office of PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D) depicting entries relatable to the said letter dated 03.10.2023.
(6) Please provide the certified copy of the relatable daily or weekly (or as and when progress was made) progress report on letter dated 03.10.2023, i.e. details of event and activities on the same from the day the letter dated 03.10.2023 was received by PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D).
(7) The complaint cum concordant representation dated 06.07.2023 which was subject matter of letter dated 03.10.2023 has not been Page 5 of 19 disposed off till date with the issuance of para wise reasoned and seasoned Speaking Order and report by PCDA (R&D) within the maximally prescribed timelines.
May please provide the names of the officials to whom letter dated 03.10.2023 was forwarded by PCDA (R&D) to submit the requisite and also provide the number of days the same was kept pending at the table of the respective dealing officials at PCDA (R&D).
(8) Please provide certified copy of the noting sheet reflecting the notings at each stage of progress at PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D) from the date of receipt of the letter dated 03.10.2023 by the dealing officials at the respective offices.
(9) Certified copy of the file notings of the action proposed & recorded in the file by the note initiating officer and actions taken thereof on the letter dated 03.10.2023 by the officials to whom it was marked subsequently at different stages by PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D), may please be provided.
(10) Please indicate or contra-indicate the maximum time that is allowed as per timelines prescribed by the competent authority of CGDA for submission of requisite sought by Shri Anil Kumar Chopra having regards to his representation cum concordant complaint dated 06.07.2023 which is the subject matter of letter dated 03.10.2023.
Please quantify the time and avoid an advice or suggestion to refer to a particular circular or any resource for the same. Referral to circular or resource is not the requirement of RTI seeker in terms of information being sought or desired.
(11) Prima facie, the timelines has not been adhered to in the disposal of afore-mentioned case by a para wise "Speaking Order" with the creation of compliance audit/ performance audit / efficiency audit report.
As per the record available, please indicate or contra-indicate in "Yes / No" binary format whether timelines prescribed have been adhered to or not adhered to.
(12) Please indicate the name and designation of the official(s) of PCDA (R&D) and DCDA (R&D) who were to take action on the complaint cum concordant representation dated 06.07.2023 post receipt of letter dated 03.10.2023, but have not done so.
(13) As per CVC Office Order No. 74/12/05 dated 21.12.2005 - "Any undue/unjustified delay in the disposal of a case, perceived after considering all relevant factors, would reinforce a conclusion as to the presence of vigilance angle in a case".
Page 6 of 19Having regards to the same, please provide the report on the action taken or being undertaken from vigilance perspective against the officials responsible for the undue delay in disposal of the matter dated 03.10.2023 by a para wise Speaking Order on the representation cum concordant complaint dated 06.07.2023. (14) Please provide certified copy of the compliance audit / performance audit / complaint audit / efficiency audit report sought vide complaint cum concordant representation dated 06.07.2023 which was to be provided by PCDA (R&D) and DCDA(R&D) post receipt of letter dated 03.10.2023."
The CPIO reply vide dated 27.06.2024 is on record, stating as under:
"Para 1 to 18: No information sought. So no reply is anticipated.
Para19:-
(1) This information is not available with this office. However, it is intimated that this office received the said letter through email from CGDA HQrs office on 05.10.2023.
(2) This information is not available with this office. However, copy of letter received from HQrs Office is enclosed for information.
(3) HQrs Office letter No. AT/11/2296/c-23401, dated 03.10.2023 has been received in PCDA(R&D) New Delhi through email on 05.10.2023 and the same was forwarded to DCDA(R&D) New Delhi through email on 06.10.2023 and by post also which was received in DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House оп 12.10.2023. Certified copy of the same is enclosed for your information please.
(4) Inward Dak ID R3789PGL790, dated 13.10.2023 has been allocated by the Records Section of DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House. Certified copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your information please.
(5) Please refer Para 3 & 4 above. Copy of email received from Hors Office is attached.
(6) Information, as sought for, is not available either in DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House or PCDA(R&D) New Delhi.
Page 7 of 19(7) The letter dated 03.10.2023 has been disposed off by this office on 22.11.2023 vide letter no. AN/R&D/02/Misc, dated 22.11.2023 and forwarded to HQrs Office through email on 23.11.2023(copy enclosed).
(8) Copy of noting attached.
(9) Same as point 8 above.
(10) No information is sought. So, no reply is anticipated.
(11) No information is sought. So, no reply is anticipated.
(12) Action on the complaint letter has been taken by this office and replied appropriately as mentioned at point 7 above. Hence allegation of non-action on the complaint is not acceptable.
(13) Same as point 12 above.
(14) No such information is available with this office. However, a copy of letter forwarded to HQrs office in this regard is attached for information please.
Para20 to 24: No information is sought. So, no reply is anticipated."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on grounds that information sought by her was not furnished within 48 hours under Section 7(i) of the RTI Act.
3. Complaint No: CIC/CGDACV/C/2024/626485 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2024 citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through 12 points under para 19 of her application:-
"
(1) Please provide Inward Dak ID (with date) as recorded / allocated by the Record Section (or any other authorized section) in TULIP as per the Dak category available in Project Tulip or otherwise an acknowledgement ID (with date) w.r.t. said representation cum concordant complaint dated 03.10.2023.
Page 8 of 19(2) Having regards to the dissemination of the dak, please provide Outward Dak ID (with date) as recorded / allocated by the Record Section (or any other authorized section) in TULIP as per the Dak category available in Project Tulip or otherwise an outward dak dispatch id (with date) w.r.t. said representation cum concordant complaint dated 03.10.2023.
(3) Having regards to the said representation cum concordant complaint dated 03.10.2023, if the receipt of the same by CGDA and dispatch thereof to the concerned officials in the office of CGDA has not been recorded in the TULIP platform, then please provide certified copy of the relevant page of the inward dak diary receipt register AND the relevant page of outward dispatch register maintained by the record section / office of CGDA depicting entries relatable to the said complaint cum concordant representation dt. 03.10.2023.
(4) Please provide the certified copy of the relatable daily or weekly (or as and when progress was made) progress report on complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023, i.e. details of event and activities on the same from the day the complaint cum concordant representation dt. 03.10.2023 was received. (5) The complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023 has not been disposed off till date with the issuance of para wise reasoned and seasoned Speaking Order. May please provide the names of the officials to whom it was marked and also provide the number of days the same was kept pending at their table / with them.
(6) Please provide certified copy of the noting sheet reflecting the notings at each stage of progress from the date of receipt of the complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023 to till date.
(7) Certified copy of the file notings of the action proposed & recorded in the file by the note initiating officer and actions taken thereof on the complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023 by the officials to whom it was marked subsequently at different stages, may please be reproduced and provided. (8) Please indicate or contra-indicate the maximum time that is allowed as per timelines prescribed by the competent authority of CGDA/followed by the officials of CGDA and the time that will be taken on the complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023.
Please quantify the time and avoid an advice or suggestion to refer to a particular circular or any resource for the same. Referral to Page 9 of 19 circular or resource is not the requirement of RTI seeker in terms of information being sought or desired.
(9) Prima facie, the timelines has not been adhered to in the disposal of afore-mentioned case by a para wise "Speaking Order". As per the record available, please indicate or contra-indicate in "Yes / No" binary format whether timelines prescribed have been adhered to or not adhered to.
(10) Please indicate the name and designation of the official(s) who were to take action on the complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023, but have not done so. (11) As per CVC Office Order No. 74/12/05 dated 21.12.2005 - "Any undue/unjustified delay in the disposal of a case, perceived after considering all relevant factors, would reinforce a conclusion as to the presence of vigilance angle in a case".
Having regards to the same, please provide the report on the action taken or being undertaken from vigilance perspective against the officials responsible for the undue delay in disposal of the matter dated 03.10.2023 by a para wise Speaking Order. (12) Please provide certified copy of the compliance audit / performance audit / complaint audit / efficiency audit report sought vide complaint cum concordant representation dated 03.10.2023."
The CPIO reply vide letter dated 27.06.2024 is on record stating as under:
"Para 1 to 18: No information sought. So no reply is anticipated.
Para 19:-
(1) Certified copy of Inward Dak ID allocated by the Record Section of DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House is enclosed herewith for your information please.
(2) Reply was forwarded to the PCDA(R&D) New Delhi through email on 13.10.2023. Certified copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your information please.
(3) The said information is not available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House.
(4) Data, as sought for, is not available in DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House.
(5) Data, as sought for, is not available in DCDA(R&D)Metcalfe House.
Page 10 of 19(6) Data, as sought for, is not available in DCDA(R&D)Metcalfe House.
(7) Data, as sought for, is not available in DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House.
(8) No information is available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House.
(9) Reply of the letter dated 03.10.2023 has been furnished by the DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House to PCDA(R&D) New Delhi on 13.10.2023.
(10) Action on the representation dated 03.10.2023 has been taken by the O/o DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House and reply has been forwarded to PCDA(R&D) New Delhi vide their letter no. DCDA/MH/Pay/1149, dated 13.10.2023. PCDA(R&D) New Delhi forwarded the reply to HQrs Office vide letter no. AN/R&D/02/Misc, dated 22.11.2023(copy enclosed). Hence the allegation of the complainant about non-action and providing name of official/officials is not acceptable.
(11) Same as point 10.
(12) Data, as sought for, is not available in DCDA(R&D)Metcalfe House.
Para20 to 24: No information is sought. So, no reply is anticipated."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground that information sought by her was not furnished within 48 hours under Section 7(i) of the Act.
4. Complaint No: CIC/CGDAC/C/2024/626484 Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2024 citing different provision of RTI Act, constitution of India, and giving justification of public interest by laying down reasons for seeking (inter-alia) following information through 14 points under para 19 of her application "
(1) Certified copy of Proof of service (by hand or registered post or speed post or email or any other prescribed mode of channel) of Movement Order No. LASTEC/ESTT/111/2021 dated 09.02.2021 to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, which (proof of service) was watched and Page 11 of 19 vouched to pay-drop on the TULIP platform by the designated controller authorized for this purpose at Delhi. (2) Certified copy of DO Part II or Part II order of strength increase of IRDE Dehradun on account of joining of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra at IRDE Dehradun, which was brought on record by controller of defence accounts at Dehradun and thereafter watched and vouched by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi before pay- drop on TULIP platform at Delhi / transfer of salary data. (3) Date of creation of "joining report" of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra at IRDE Dehradun, which was made known by the controller of defence accounts at Dehradun to the controller of defence accounts at Delhi on TULIP platform or otherwise. (4) Certified copy of the "joining report" of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra generated on the TULIP platform or otherwise by the controller of defence accounts at Dehradun.
(5) Certified copy of the proof of service watched and vouched by the designated controller of defence at Delhi, of the duly diarized, authenticated version of the posting order No. DOP/05/53128/LASTEC/M/02 dated 04.12.2020 endorsed by the controlling officer and Director of LASTEC at that point of time, before pay-drop was done in TULIP platform by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra. (6) Certified copy of certificate of transfer of charge in GFR 16 proviso to Rule 286(1) of GFR 2017/ charge relinquishment executed between the employer and Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, which was watched and vouched by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi before pay-drop on the TULIP platform.
(7) Certified copy of the audited Last Pay Certificate (LPC) of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra in statutory form R.P.R. 2 / G.A.R 2 notified in GFR 2017 / Subsidiary instructions to Central Instructions to Central Govt. Accounts (Receipt and Payment Rules) with para 4 - "He / She made over the charge of the office of......on the forenoon/afternoon of......" filled & completed with details of handing over & taking over, which was watched and vouched by the controller of defence accounts at Delhi in March 2021 before pay-drop in TULIP platform.
(8) Certified copy of relevant page of the last paid salary bill in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra indicating therein the occurrence of event of handing over and taking over on the basis of which name of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra was removed from the subsequent salary bills of the unit / establishment - LASTEC. The copy of the same ought to be watched and vouched by the controller of Page 12 of 19 defence accounts at Delhi, and is available with the CDA (R&D) Metcalfe House, Delhi.
(9) Unit Accounting Code number allotted to the unit / establishment -
LASTEC, Delhi, may please be provided.
(10) Date of closure of the Unit Accounting Code of the unit / establishment LASTEC, Metcalfe House, Delhi, may please be provided (11) Reference number & date of the order issued by controller of defence accounts at Delhi / CGDA to close the Unit Accounting Code of LASTEC, may please be provided.
(12) Please provide name and designation of the official or officials of controller of defence accounts at Delhi, who exercised the authority for the pay-drop in TULIP platform at Delhi in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra.
(13) Please provide certified copy of the document, indicating the rule position which stipulates quoting of authority of transfer / posting order and NOT the authority of charge relinquishment in a DO Part II or Part II order of strength decrease published from a unit / establishment and thereafter watched and vouched by controller of defence accounts before pay-drop of an individual in TULIP platform.
(14) Any other document relevant and appropriate which was watched and vouched for its legal correctness in accordance with the statutory Provisions and General Financial Rules, and used by the controller of defence accounts in TULIP platform at Delhi to pay drop and TULIP out of the salary data of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra."
The CPIO reply vide letter dated 26.06.2026 is on record stating as under:
"Para 1 to 18: No information sought. So no reply is anticipated.
Para19: -
(1) Document as desired (proof of service) is not maintained in DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House. However, certified copy of Movement Order No. LASTEC/ESTT//111/2021 dt. 09.02.2021 to Shri Anil Kumar Chopra is enclosed for your information please.
(2) Certified copy of DO Part II order of strength increase on account of Shri A.K Chopra at IRDE Dehradun is neither available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House nor with JCDA(R&D) Dehradun. It is further intimated that JCDA (R&D) Dehradun has not received any claim regarding the Pay and Allowances in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, SCF from IRDE.
IRDE vide their letter No. G/115/2/EST dt. 06.06.2024 (copy enclosed) Page 13 of 19 has intimated that Shri A. K. Chopra has not joined the Establisahment on his transfer from LASTEC Delhi to IRDE Dehradun in public interest. Hence for getting the desired document matter may be taken up with concerned branch of DRDO (3) Information regarding date of creation of "joining report" of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra at IRDE Dehradun is neither available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House nor with JCDA(R&D) Dehradun as the officer did not join IRDE Dehradun.
(4) Certified copy of the "joining report of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra is neither available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House nor with JCDA(R&D) Dehradun as the officer did not join IRDE Dehradun.
(5) Certified copy of posting order No. DOP/05/53128/LASTEC/M/02 dt.04.12.2020 is enclosed for your information please.
(6) Certified copy of certificate of transfer of charge in GFR 16 proviso to rule 286(1) of GFR 2017/charge relinquishment is not available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House.
(7) Certificate in desired format is not available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House office, however certified copy of the audited Last Pay Certificate(LPC) of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, as forwarded by LASTEC vide their letter No. ले सतेक/ शाशन/िव /एलपीसी-जीओ/5111, िदनांक 31 मई, 2021 is enclosed for your information please.
(8) Certified copy of relevant page of the March 2021-month salary bill in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra, is enclosed for your information please.
(9) Unit Accounting code number allotted to unit/establishment LASTEC, Delhi is 330000036.
(10) Date of closure of the unit/establishment LASTEC is 23 March 2022(As per Ministry of Defence, of Research letter DHRD/76682/LASTEC/C/M/01/270/D(R&D) dated 23.03.2022.) Department Defence & Development No. (11) Reference number & date of the order issued by Controller of Defence Accounts at Delhi/CGDA to close the Unit Accounting Code of Page 14 of 19 LASTEC is neither available with DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House nor with PCDA (R&D)New Delhi.
(12) Information regarding name and designation of the official or officials of Controller of Defence Accounts at Delhi, who exercised the authority for the Pay drop in Tulip platform at Delhi in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Chopra is not maintained.
(13) Individual is transferred out/dropped from TULIP on receipt of 1.PC and Movement order from concerned lab/Establishment, LASTEC in the instant case.
(14) Information sought is not specific. Therefore, could not be provided.
(15) Para20 to 24: No information is sought. So, no reply is anticipated."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on ground that information sought by her was not furnished within 48 hours under Section 7(i) of the Act.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. K. Lalbiakchhunga, CPIO CGDA, Sh. Parminder Singh, CPIO PCDA(R&D), Ms. Anuradha, CPIO DCDA(R&D), Metcalfe House, Ms. Deepti Bharadwaj, CAO SSPL, DRDO LAB.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaints on Respondent, while filing the same in CIC, is not available on record.
6. The complainant was not present, despite the notice for hearing having been served.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that Complainant is in the habit of filing repeated RTI Applications. The applications in the instant cases pertain to information relating to her husband, who was compulsorily retired in 2024, following a disciplinary proceeding. CPIOs submitted that in pursuance of the compulsory retirement of the complainant's husband, all documents related to his pension have been sent to all the addresses of the complainant available with them. However, he has not responded to submit his pension papers. They further submitted that due to Page 15 of 19 multiple RTI Application of similar nature filed by the complainant, a significant amount of time of the resources available is wasted in preparing replies on the multiple applications.
8. Written submissions, each dated 14.01.2026, filed by the respondents against each complaint are taken on record. In the submission, the respondent CPIOs have stated the following:
"On scrutiny of the RTI application bearing No. CGDF A/R/E/24101933, dt. 01.06.2024 (received online on 03.06.2024), the case was not found to be a case of life and or liberty of the person by the then CPlO, hence reply was submitted by the CPIO accordingly after obtaining details from the DCDA(R&D) Metcalfe House to which the case pertains, although the case was purportedly filed by the applicant under Section 7(i) of RTI Act2005.
Whatever Information/Documents were available with the CPIO were provided to the applicant giving due regards to the provision of RTI Act duly understanding the responsibilities of a CPIO and within the ambit of, RTI Act 2005. The information/ Documents, the custodian of which is the concerned Lab of DRD. Organization has only either been not provided or denied of having available with the CPIO"
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties present and perusal of the records, takes note of the fact that the complainant in the instant case has filed multiple number of RTI Applications seeking information of similar nature. Also, her complaints regarding no response from CPIOs of same Public Authorities in previous RTI Applications have been disposed of by the Commission on a number of instances prior. The Commission observes that this is a misuse of the salutary provisions of the RTI Act for the redressal of grievances by this habitual RTI applicant- complainant. In the instant cases, the Commission would like to reiterate the position of Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information Page 16 of 19 under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."(Emphasis Supplied)......."
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in SHAIL SAHNI vs. SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. [W.P.(C) 845/2014] with regard to the Misuse of the RTI Act had observed as follows :
"10. ... This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with; otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. "
The Commission has time and again cautioned the RTI applicants against misuse of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, in Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA dated 25.06.2014 in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Jain v. Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GoNCT of Delhi); had observed as follows:Page 17 of 19
"5. The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI Act, assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and thus, abuse of RTI Act, by a disgruntled employee.
6. The respondent officers made fervent appeals to the Commission that they were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject matter repeatedly asked from different angles; and about individual officers, whom, the applicant assumed to be responsible for the grievance. The Commission found that the applicant was one of the four disgruntled employees against whom action was taken or their claims were denied.
7. .... The Commission also noted an atmosphere of fear and worry was spread in the offices and the officers are hesitating to take action against erring staff members for fear of facing flood of questions under RTI. ....."
In light of the above, and upon considering the written submissions placed on record by the respondent CPIOs, the Commission is of the view that the information sought by the complainant in each case has been rightly furnished by the CPIOs concerned, as per the provisions of RTI Act. Further, the complainant did not appear before the Commission to present her case. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the instant set of complaints are devoid of any merit.
Taking note of the multiple applications filed by the applicant on similar subjects before the same public authorities, and keeping in view abovementioned orders of the Hon'ble Higher Courts, the Commission cautions the complainant to desist from such kind of abuse to the RTI Act and stop harassing the public authorities.
The complaints are dismissed accordingly.
SD/-
SANJEEV KUMAR JINDAL(संजीव कुमार िजंदल) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) date: 21.01.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Col Prabhat Kumar) Dy Registrar 011- 26107051 Page 18 of 19 Addresses of the Parties:
(1) The CPIO Office of the Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt. - 110010 (2) The CPIO, Office of the PCDA (R&D), West Block - V, R K Puram, New Delhi - 110 066 (3) Ira Chopra Page 19 of 19 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)