Central Information Commission
Joydeep Banerjee vs Indian Army on 29 March, 2022
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/IARMY/A/2020/120243
In the matter of
Joydeep Banerjee
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
RTI Cell, Addl DG MT(AE), G-6, D-1 Wing,
Sena Bhawan, Gate No-4, IHQ MoD(Army),
New Delhi - 110011
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 26/01/2020 CPIO replied on : 03/03/2020 First appeal filed on : 25/03/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 06/08/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 03/07/2020 Date of Hearing : 29/03/2022 Date of Decision : 29/03/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Not contactable Respondent: Lt. Col. Nilesh Ingle, CPIO- present over phone Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the number of retired personnel from Indian Army against whom administrative action has been initiated after retirement in the last 10 years.
2. Provide the details of such personnel, rank wise and year wise, indicating award of Censure, Reproof or any other penalty awarded to such personnel.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in second appeal has desired that the information be provided stating that while the information sought may not be in the format required, it cannot be denied to him. He also stated that the FAA failed to pass a timely order.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply wherein he had stated that the information is not available in the format sought and collecting and collating it would divert their resources disproportionately as this kind of information is spread across many offices and is not kept in consolidated form anywhere.. No information was as such provided and the written submisisons dated 17.03.2022 do not provide any reasons for the delayed FAA's order.
Observations:
From a perusal of the record, it is noted that the information was not given by stating that it is not available in the format sought and it would disproportionately divert their resources if they have to collect and collate the same. Undoubtedly the information sought is rather voluminous covering 10 years and the organization is large and spread over many locations and offices, so information would be difficult to collate from the various wings of the organization. Since it is not available in consolidated form and the information sought is voluminous, the Commission is in agreement with the reasons given by the CPIO and upholds his view. The CPIO should however note that such delayed orders of the FAA is not acceptable and he is warned to be careful in future regarding the laid down time lines.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is in agreement with the views of the CPIO regarding the voluminous and spread out information and non availability in ready made form. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO is upheld and no relief can be given to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
2
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3