Central Information Commission
K Sundarajan vs Ministry Of Defence on 12 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2023/143973
K Sundarajan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
High Energy Projectile Factory,
Unit of Munitions India Ltd,
Thiruchirappalli - 620025 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2025
Date of Decision : 11.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.08.2023
CPIO replied on : 14.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.10.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 29.08.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Refer your E-mail dated 03.05.2023 addressed to my E-mail ID [email protected] giving clarification on various issues raised by me vide my representation dated 02.05.2023 on the subjects; "Sustaining "Signature Fraud used to hush up financial fraud running to crores", "Giving false information to Central Information Commission, Criminal intimidation of Whistle Blowers who raised their voice against "Signature Fraud" and "Extortion of Wages" etc. For your easy reference print out copy of my E-mail Page 1 of 8 complaint dated 02.05.2023 and your office E-mail reply dated 03.05.2023 is enclosed herewith marked as D-1 & D-2 respectively.
1(a) Kindly furnish me print out copy of your aforementioned Defence Establishment "E-mail dated 03.05.2023" addressed 10 [email protected] me tο my E-mail ID 1(b) Information may kindly be given whether approval of General Manager/HEPF and other HEPF Officers was obtained to furnish reply to my representation dated 02.05.2023 on the subjects; "Sustaining "Signature Fraud used to hush up financial fraud running to crores", "Giving false information to Central Information Commission", Criminal intimidation of Whistle Blowers who raised their voice against "Signature Fraud" and "Extortion of Wages" etc. If the answer is in affirmative "Yes" then copy of "Approval obtained for sending E-mail reply dated 03.05.2023 may kindly be furnished to me.
1(b) Kindly furnish me print out copy of my aforementioned E-mail dated 02.05.2023 on the subjects; "Sustaining "Signature Fraud" used to hush up financial fraud running to crores", "Giving false information to Central Information Commission", Criminal intimidation of Whistle Blowers who raised their voice against "Signature Fraud" and "Extortion of Wages" etc. The printout copy of my E-mail dated 02.05.2023 should have Establishment Office Stamp as well as initials and remarks of HEPF officials on it.
1 (c) Copy of all corresponding Official Noting with regard to my E-mail dated 02.05.2023 and subsequent reply sent by your Defence Establishment vide E- mail dated 03.05.2023 may kinldy be furnished to me.
2 Kindly refer to my duly signed complaint dated 03.08.2023 addressed to General Manager of HEPF Defence Establishment the subject "Acknowledgement Reciept of Submissions made on "Signature Fraud sent by "Registered/Speed Post". Proof of sending duly signed complaint dated 03.08.2023 is enclosed as D-3 in form of Postal Receipt.
2(a) Kindly furnish me photocopy of my complaint dated 03.08.2023 with your Establishment Office Seal and remarks of "General Manager of HEPF" and other officials on it.
2(b) "Action Taken Report on my complaint dated 03.08.2023 with proof of the same may kindly be given to me.
2 (c) HEPF Defence Establishment may kindly give acknowledgement receipt as sought vide my complaint dated 03.08.2023 in respect of numerous E-mail Submissions made by me on "Signature Fraud for the last 12 months."
Page 2 of 8The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.09.2023 stating as under:
"1(a) Document already attached by the RTI applicant along with his application as D-2.
1(b) No formal approval of General Manager was taken. But, the reply was shown to General Manager before issue.
1(b) The information consists of 4 pages and same will be provided on payment of ₹8/- in the form of Indian Postal Order i.e. @ of 2/-per page. 1(c) No data available.
2(a) The information consists of 1 page and same will be provided on payment of 2/- in the form of Indian Postal Order i.e. @ of ₹2/-per page. 2(b) No data available.
2(c) No acknowledgement is required to be issued for such submissions."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.10.2023, held as under.
"Appeal in this regard is accepted. The printout copy of E-mail dated
03.05.2023 addressed to [email protected] consists of 2 pages is enclosed. Hence, the appeal to point No. 1(a) is disposed off accordingly.
Appeal in this regard is accepted. The copies of available information in this regard are enclosed which consists of 2 pages. The appeal to point No. 1(c) is disposed off accordingly.
No action is taken. It is seen that the available information has already been provided by the PIO to the Appellant and no further information is available to provide in this regard. Hence, the appeal in this regard is devoid of merit and dismissed.
No information is available. The reply provided by the PIO vide his letter dated 14/09/2023 is in order. As such the appeal in this regard is devoid of merit and dismissed."
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 VC.
Respondent: Shri Shailesh Ramchandra Patel, PIO-cum-Joint General Manager, attended the hearing through VC.Page 3 of 8
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent qua point No. 2 (c) of the RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that with respect to point No. 2 (c) of the RTI Application, the Appellant vide letter dated 14.09.2023, was informed that no acknowledgement is required to be issued for such submissions. He added that the CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 28.01.2025, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"In compliance to your Notice of Hearing vide CIC letter No. CIC/DODEF/A/2023/143973 dated 22.01.2025, I hereby submit "Written Submission"
as under;
I am a Sanitary Worker who has been cheated of his due wages since the year 1999. I had made complaint to Central Vigilance Commission through my duly Authorized Representative Shri K. Saravanan with regard to fraudulent mode of payment of wages. The Central Vigilance Commission related Investigation Report confirmed direct involvement of Vigilance Officer of Defence Establishment in hushing up financial fraud running to crores. Kindly refer to Extracts of CVC related Investigation Report enclosed as D-1 for ready reference. Not only my hard earned Minimum Wages even my Employees Provident Fund was swindled by corrupt Defence Officials directly colluding with the Civil Contractor. The indictment by Enforcement Wing of Employees Provident Fund Organization is enclosed as D-2 consisting of 12 pages. The amount of Rs.1.86 crore is only with regard to Employees Provident Fund and does not include swindled Minimum Wages which runs to around 2.14 crores.
In order to suppress financial fraud running to around 4 crores, the HAPP Defence Establishment indulge in following heinous crimes;
1. Murder (Foul death) of first Whistle Blower
2. Murderous assault on Second Whistle Blower
3. Criminal intimidation & illegal confinement.
4. Issuing threat to life, coercion & blackmail
5. Destruction of incriminating Board of Enquiries that expose corruption.
6. "Forging Documents" & "Forging Signatures" to hush up financial frauds. Corruption running to crores was established by the Appellant along with other Whistle Blowers. Amount of Rs. 4 crores was swindled by corrupt HEPF Defence Establishment through mafia style of executing corruption. The First Whistle Blower was found hanging mysteriously inside the High Security HEPF Defence Establishment that was witnessed by me personally. The foul death of the First Whistle Blower was hushed up by HEPF Defence Establishment unlawfully. FIR was not registered and Postmortem was not conducted.
Page 4 of 8The Second Whistle Blower who forwarded complaint to Central Vigilance Commission based on my insistence was subjected to murderous assault even while the Central Vigilance Commission Investigation was in progress. The High ranking corrupt HEPF Defence Officials did not want themselves to be exposed. In spite of murderous assault on the Second Whistle Blower, I had appeared before the CVC related Investigation process and the CVC related Investigation Report indicted the Vigilance Officer of HEPF Defence Establishment of hushing up financial fraud running to crores. In order to wriggle out of their indictment in the CVC related Investigation Report, the High Ranking Defence Officials of HEPF Establishment forged my signature and forged other documents and sent to CVC. Using my forged signature as well as forged documents, the CVC related Investigation Report was sabotaged by criminally inclined corrupt HEPF Defence Officials.
As the above criminal offences committed was of extremely severe nature, my authorised representative Shri K. Saravanan had come forward to undergo "Narco Analysis Test" to confirm "Murder (Foul Death), Murderous assault and destruction of Board of Enquiry Reports". The offer to voluntarily undergo Narco Analysis Test was made to the concerned "Chief Vigilance Officer of the Defence Establishment". The acknowledgement of the Chief Vigilance Officer with regard to my authorised Representative volunteering to undergo "Narco Analysis Test" is enclosed as D-3 for ready reference.
Apart from repeatedly volunteering to undergo Narco Analysis Test, I had submitted fool proof Documentary Evidences through numerous submissions to the Defence Establishment to substantiate aforementioned heinous crime inclusive of forging my own signature to sabotage CVC related Investigation Report. As the corrupt Defence Establishment wilfully refrained from acknowledging incriminating Documentary Evidences submitted. I had forwarded the hard material evidences through E-mail. May kindly refer to CVC Circular No. 3(v)/99/1 dated 21.06.1999 copy of which is enclosed as D-4 for ready reference. The contents of this CVC Circular is reproduced for easy reference of Central Information Commissioner;
"Accountability is one of the major factors in the effective administration of the Organisations. Administration without accountability is disastrous and provides ample scope for corruption. Dealing with the complaints is one of the areas, which calls for more accountability. Therefore, in order to bring in a sense of accountability both in the complainant and in the office receiving the complaint, the Commission, in exercise of its powers conferred on it vide Section 3(u) of the Resolution No.371/20/99-AVD.III dated 4/4/99, directs hereby all Departments/Organisations under its purview to compulsorily give proper receipt of the complaints being received in person to the complainant, with immediate effect". Clear-cut instructions has been issued by Central Vigilance Commission to compulsorily give proper receipt of complaints. Numerous submissions made by me complaining of "Signature Fraud"
has to be duly acknowledged by HEPF Defence Establishment. The HEPF Defence Establishment has natural fear for "Accountability" as it is steeped in corruption and sustaining "Signature Fraud" for years together.
As on date, the Electronic Evidence is admissible under Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Apart from sending incriminating Documentary Evidences through E-mail, I had Page 5 of 8 also sent complaint through Registered Post. Kindly refer to Documentary Evidence D- 5 in form of Postal Receipt.
The corrupt HEPF Defence Establishment which intended to hush up multiple criminal acts refused to acknowledge receipt of submission of vital Documentary Evidences to substantiate third rate crimes as well as corruption running to crores. It is in this backdrop that Second Appeal is preferred with Central Information Commission which may kindly insist the CPIO/FAA of HEPF Defence Establishment to provide me acknowledgement receipt of submission of Documentary Evidences to substantiate to third rate crimes as well as corruption running to crores. Kindly refer to legitimate information sought by me at Point No. 2 (c) of my RTI Application dated 29.08.2023 which is reproduced as under; 2 (c) HEPF Defence Establishment may kindly give acknowledgement receipt as sought vide my complaint dated 03.08.2023 in respect of numerous E-mail Submissions made by me on "Signature Fraud" for the last 12 months. After committing heinous crimes, the arrogant reply furnished by Public Information Officer for Point No. 2 (c) of my RTI Application dated 29.08.2023 is reproduced as under;
"No acknowledgement is required to be issued for such submissions." The First Appellate Authority/General Manager of the corrupt Defence Establishment holds the same view.
The Central Information Commissioner may kindly direct the CPIO/HEPF to provide me acknowledgement of submissions made by me complaining against "Signature Fraud" as sought by me at Point No. 2 (c) of my RTI Application dated 28.08.2023. It was in backdrop of gravity of crime committed and corruption executed in mafia style, the caption of the Written Submission "Wilful suppression of Information by "Arrogant Frauds & Corrupt Criminals" is apt.
The murder (foul death) and murderous assault takes place regularly at HAPP Defence Establishment. Kindly refer CIC/DODEF/A/2022/150708 to your own CIC Decision No. Date of Hearing 09.01.2024, in respect of my Authorized Representative Shri K. Saravanan.
The murderous assault and criminal intimidation was caught on CCTV camera, the corrupt HAPP Defence Establishment refused to provide the CCTV footage to hush up third rate criminal offences. Kindly refer to Documentary Evidence D-6, in the first instance the CCTV footage is refused citing that the retention period of CCTV footage is only for 30 days. Kindly refer to contradictory reply furnished by corrupt Defence Establishment cited in Documentary Evidence D-7 enclosed herewith. When CCTV footage was sought for period within 7 days from the date of crime, the cunning Jackals of corrupt Defence Establishment fraudulently stated that "No information is available".
The most cunning and evasive reply that "No information is available" is taken very lightly by most of the Information Commissioners giving verdict in favour of the CPIO/FAA but the hard hitting stance of Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari ji in CIC Decision No. CIC/DODEF/A/2022/150708 dated 09.01.2024 is very heartening.
Page 6 of 8Through this written submission, I humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari ji to direct the CPIO/HEPF to provide me acknowledgement of submissions made by me exposing serious criminal offences as sought by me at Point No. 2 (c) of my RTI Application dated 28.08.2023."
A written submission has been received from Shri Shailesh Ramchandra Patel, PIO-cum-Joint General Manager, vide letter dated 03.02.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"I Shri Shailesh Ramchandra Patil, Joint General Manager and appointed to function as PIO with effect from 06/01/2025 vide this respondent's establishment Factory Order Part-I No. 6 dated 06/01/2025.
2. The notice of hearing for appeal was received by this office on 01/02/2025 and the written submission is made to the commission on 03/02/2025 as 02/02/2025 is Sunday.
3. The applicant by his RTI application dated 29/08/2023 against Point No. 2(c) had asked HEPF Defence Establishment to give acknowledgement receipt in respect of numerous E-mail submissions made by him on "Signature Fraud" for the last 12 months, as sought vide his complaint dated 03/08/2023.
4. The information requested by the applicant in accordance with Sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 5 of RTI Act, 2005 was taken up with the information holder. The information holder informed that No acknowledgement is required to be issued for such submissions (submitted through email). Accordingly, reply was given to the appellant vide respondent letter No. 11151/RTI-2/HEPF/KSR/2023 dated 14/09/2023 that No acknowledgement is required to be issued for such submissions and if aggrieved may prefer first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 with the Appellate Authority.
5. The applicant had preferred First Appeal to the appellate authority on 24/09/2023.
The appellate authority disposed the appeal stating that No information is available and the reply provided by the PIO vide his letter dated 14/09/2023 is in order.
6. The applicant not satisfied with the orders of the First Appellate authority had preferred 2nd appeal before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission.
7. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the applicant had asked to refer CVC Circular No. 3(v)/99/1 dated 21/06/1999 wherein the following instruction is given:
"Accountability is one of the major factors in the effective administration of the Organisations. Administration without accountability is disastrous and provides ample scope for corruption. Dealing with the complaints is one of the areas, which calls for more accountability. Therefore, in order to bring in a sense of accountability both in the complainant and in the office receiving the complaint, the Commission, in exercise of its powers conferred on it vide Section 3(v) of the Resolution No.371/20/99-AVD.III dated 4/4/99, hereby directs all Departments/Organisations under its purview to compulsorily give proper receipt of the complaints being received in person to the complainant, with immediate effect".Page 7 of 8
8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the above CVC instructions, all Departments/Organisations are to compulsorily give proper receipt of complaints received in person to the complainant. However, the applicant is requesting for acknowledgement for the complaints sent through email. No acknowledgements are being sent separately for the emails received. The other points made by the applicant in the present submission dated 01/02/2025 are irrelevant and has no connection with this appeal.
9. Hence, the present appeal preferred by the applicant Shri K. Sundarajan does not have any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the 2nd appeal."
Decision:
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 relevant information to the Appellant as available in their records and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is neither supposed to create information that is not a part of the record, nor is he required to interpret information nor provide clarification. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case for further adjudication.
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 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)