Central Information Commission
Ranbir Singh vs Defence Research And Development ... on 16 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2019/148759
In the matter of:
Ranbir Singh
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Defence Research and Development Organisation
Centre for Fire, Explosives & Environment (CFEES)
Brig. SK Mazumdar Marg, Timarpur, Delhi - 110 054
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/07/2019 CPIO replied on : 12/07/2019 First appeal filed on : 19/07/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 07/08/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 07/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Date of Decision : 15/03/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Dr. P.K. Rai, Scientist G & CPIO; Mr. B.S. Yadav, Jt Director; Ms. Anushree Tomar , Scientist E & Rep of Hqrs.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect of his son Mr. Rupender Duggal:
1. Date of joining the CFEES.
2. His Designation/Post in CFEES.
3. Pay Scale of the post held by him.
4. Present Basic pay and total salary per month.
5. Certified copy of recent Salary Slip.
6. Residential address given in the service record.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has rejected the application under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The respondents reiterated the contents of the reply given to the appellant.
The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that the sought information related to his son. He further submitted that his wife i.e. mother of Mr Rupender Duggal has filed a maintenance case for Mr. Rupender Duggal and his sister. On the false statement of his mother, the Hon'ble court has ordered to give the maintenance for his and his sister stating "-for her maintenance and for taking care of growing need of her children who are still studying and not gainfully employed'. He contested that in fact both are major and well educated. Now Mr. Rupender Duggal has got employment in the above mentioned centre/lab which is under the control of DRDO which is a govt. organization. Since the Hon'ble Court has ignored his submissions and is relying on the false statement of his wife and Mr. Rupender Duggal therefore, he filed the said RTI application for seeking the said information, which is required to be provided in the Hon'ble Court.
The appellant stated that he is paying maintenance from his son's salary and desires the information for taking up the matter in the court case .
The CPIO submitted that DRDO is placed in the Second Schedule of the 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 violations. The appellant was informed that his request for information does not come under the purview of the above mentioned provisions. Therefore, his application was rejected under Section 24(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the FAA had also concurred with the CPIO's reply.
Observations:
The Commission observes at the very outset that the primary grievance of the Appellant is his apparent dissatisfaction with the competent Court's order to pay maintenance to his wife and his son(third party). Since this is a family dispute, it is not appropriate to ascribe the aspect of human rights violation to the matter nor has he alleged any corruption DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the DRDO except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged.
The expression ''allegation of corruption'' and ''violation of human rights'' is not defined in the Act, thus it is open to the Commission to decide the matter of involvement of corruption or human rights on a case to case basis. The allegations of corruption and human rights violation should be construed to mean verifiable allegations, in other words, a mere charge of corruption or human rights violation is not sufficient in the absence of any supporting material that proves such charge in its evidentiary value has strength. It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word 'corruption' or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the Appellant.
It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 83/2014 held 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"
Further, the above judgment was exemplified by a division bench of the same Court in LPA 229/2014, wherein it was held that- "...We agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in as much as the information that was sought by the appellant/petitioner pertained to her service record which had nothing to do with any allegation of corruption or of human rights violations. Therefore, the CIC as well as the learned Single Judge were correct in holding that the information sought would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act. It is another matter that the CIC had, as a matter of course, directed the DRDO to supply the information, which was ultimately supplied by the DRDO. The fact of the matter is that the DRDO could not have been compelled to supply the information under the said Act" The aforesaid adequately proves that the Appellant's instant case cannot be considered as a matter of violation of his fundamental rights/human rights violation nor is there any allegtion of corruption . A conjoint reading of the above ratios laid down by the superior courts as well as observations of the Commission leads to the conclusion that no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date