Central Information Commission
Divesh Kumar vs Department Of Millitary Affairs on 17 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/615601
Divesh Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval
Command, Naval Base,
Visakhapatnam, AP - 530014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025
Date of Decision : 16.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 06.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 04.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.04.2024
Compliance of FA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 31.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. I Divesh Kumar, ME I, 243856-W Serving Sailor of Indian Navy and presently posted at INS Eksila, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam.Page 1 of 6
You are requested to furnish important following documents related to my summary trial for further proceedings.
(a) Certified true copy (CTC) of nine charges and statements of nine witnesses forwarded by Officer-in-Charge (Cdr Manoj Kumar, 05389-Y), Naval Coast Battery (V) to Commanding Officer, INS Circars vide NCB (V) letter no. 203/218783K dated 09 Mar 23.
(b) Certified true copy (CTC) of register for personnel placed in open custody on M personnel deployed on Escort duty on 09 Mar 23 at about 1700 hrs.
(c) Certified true copy (CTC) of Authority/order to take and remove to the applicant (Divesh Kumar, ME 1243856-W) into custody on 09 Mar 23 and 10 Mar 23 respectively
(d) Certified true copy (CTC) of dismissed complaints/charges and authority for that before commencement of summary trial (Investigating Officer trial).
(e) Certified true copy (CTC) of INS Circars Daily Order no. 55/2023 dated 21 Mar 23.
(f) Certified true copy (CTC) of SNLR Warning law Reg 279(2) of Rags Navy part III on 23 Mar 23 vide NCB (V) letter 100/REG dated 24 Aug 23.
(g) Certified true copy (CTC) of Punishment warrant (-438) of INS Circars warrant no. 08/2023 dated 23 Mar 23 which was read by Cdr-At-Arms Jagmed Singh, 06056-N, Regulating Officer, INS Circars on 23 Mar 23
(h) Certified trum copy (CTC) of MLC conducted at Mi room INS Orcars on 23 Mar 23 at about 18 by Duty Medical Officer/PMO befons placing to Applicant (Divesh Kumar, ME 1, 243856-W) in solitary confinement vide INS Circers punishment warrant no. 08/2023 dated 23 Mar 23
(i) Certified true copy (CTC) of cased RMA genform during Cell punishment on 23 Mar 23.
(j) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of Cell registers of INS Cincars for 23 Mar 23 including extract of Cell Sentry handing taking over book and CCTV Footage of Cell of 23 Mar 23.Page 2 of 6
(k) Certified true copy (CTC) of Documentary Evidences vide page no. 02 of Punishment warrant no. 10/2023 dated 24 Mar 23."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.12.2023 stating as under:
"In response to your RTI application NCB(V) has intimated that the information sought pertains to your Summary Trial. Hence, it is a service related grievance. Therefore, you are advised to approach through proper channel which is already existing in service for redressal of grievance as per extant regulations. Notwithstanding, the copy documents pertaining to your Summary Trial has already been provided by NSB(V). The copy of acknowledgement receipt is enclosed."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 03.04.2024, held as under.
"1. Your appeal has been examined in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. INS Circars has intimated that Punishment Warrant No 08/23 does not pertain to you. Hence, the copy of the Punishment Warrant No 08/23 cannot be provided to you. Further, due to certain ambiguity, punishment of cell was read and you were placed in custody on 23 Mar 23 at 2025 hrs and immediately withdrawn from the cell at 2225 hrs on re-verification of the details of the case. Accordingly, the said Punishment Warrant was cancelled and the same is not in existence anymore.
2. The copy of Punishment Warrant No 10/23 dated 24 Mar 23, drawn and read over to you has already been provided along with other summary trial documents on 26 Jul 23. The PIO's response dated 06 Dec 23 in this regard is considered appropriate."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Capt. GS Ugandhar Reddy, PIO, appeared through video conference.Page 3 of 6
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 13.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that specific information sought was not provide by the Respondent till the date of hearing.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that he had filed a written submission dated 29.08.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
1. Refer to the Hon'ble CIC hearing notice CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/615601 dated 06 Aug 25 iro 243856-W, LME Divesh Kumar scheduled at 1115 Hrs on 02 Sep 25
2. Background. The appellant, 243856-W, LME Divesh Kumar (A serving sailor of IN), vide his RTI Application dated 31 Oct 23 and subsequent First Appeal dated 04 Jan 24 had sought for various documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings.
3. Response by PIO. The RTI Application dated 31 Oct 23, was disposed off by PIO letter dated 06 Dec 23. Therein, the information sought was denied to the appellant stating that the information wrt copy of documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings may be sought through the extant service mechanism. Notwithstanding, citing an acknowledgement receipt from the sailor dated 26 Jul 23, NCB(V) has intimated that a copy of documents pertaining to Summary Trial Proceedings iro the sailor has already been provided to him. The same was further cited in disposal of the RTI application.
4 First Appeal Aggrieved by the aforesaid response, the appellant had preferred an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The appellant vide his First Appeal inter-alia citing his exercise of service mechanism through representation dated 02 Aug 23 which was duly disposed off vide NCB(V) letter no. 100/REG dated 24 Aug 23, contended that he was provided Summary Trial documents iro INS Circars Punishment Warrant No 10/23 only, as also incomplete and not the Summary Trial documents iro INS Circars Punishment Warrant No. 08/23.Page 4 of 6
5. Response by FAA. In disposal to the RTI Appeal dated 04 Jan 24, the FAA vide letter dated 03 Apr 24, upheld the decision of PIO inter-alia intimating the appellant that the Punishment Warrant No. 08/23 does not pertain to the appellant. Hence, the copy of the Punishment Warrant No. 08/23 cannot be provided to the appellant. Further, due to certain ambiguity, punishment of cell was read and the appellant was placed in custody on 23 Mar 23 at 2025 Hrs and immediately withdrawn from the cell at 2225 Hrs on re- verification of the details of the case. Accordingly, the said Punishment Warrant was cancelled and the same is not in existence anymore.
6 Justification for Response of PIO and Order of FAA 6.1. Justification for Response by PIO The appellant had sought for various documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings, the same was denied to him by PIO advising him to resort the extant service mechanism inter-alia citing the acknowledgement receipt dated 26 Jul 23 provided by his unit (NCB(V)} stated that the documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings had already been provided to the appellant.
6.2 Justification for Order of FAA. On perusal of the records, it was learnt that the Punishment Warrant No. 08/23 does not pertain to the appellant.
Hence, the copy of the Punishment Warrant No 08/23 cannot be provided to him. Further, due to certain ambiguity, punishment of cell was read and the appellant was placed in custody on 23 Mar 23 at 2025 Hrs and immediately withdrawn from the cell at 2225 Hrs on re-verification of the details of the case. Accordingly, the said Punishment Warrant was cancelled and the same is not in existence anymore. The FAA vide letter dated 03 Apr 24 inter-alia upholding the decision of PIO, intimated the aforesaid inadvertent error to the appellant for better understanding. It was further noted that despite being intimated by NCB(V) in disposal of his representation dated 02 Aug 23, that if he still feels aggrieved, he may submit a request for forwarding of his representation to the next higher Authority (Refers Para-7 of NCB(V) letter no 100/REG dated 24 Aug 23 (Copy enclosed)), instead of submitting any further request regarding his grievance, the appellant had resorted the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the PIO's advise to exercise the extant service mechanism inter-alia the denial to information was considered to be justified in the eyes of law
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the denial to information sought was in conformity with the scheme of RTI Act. 2005. It is requested that the Hon'ble CIC may uphold the order of FAA and dispose off the Second Appeal."
Page 5 of 6Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has provided the documents pertaining to Punishment Warrant No. 10/23 and explained that Punishment Warrant No. 08/23 does not exist as it was cancelled and not related to the Appellant. The Appellant has not placed any material to dispute the Respondent's submissions or to show that the information provided is incorrect or incomplete. The CPIO's response and the FAA's order are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and no mala fide can be attributed to the Respondent. In view of the above, the Commission finds no reasons to intervene in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam, AP - 530014 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)