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/2024/617209
Divesh Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Headquarters, Eastern Naval
Command, Naval Base Post,
Visakhapatnam-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 : 12.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 16.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
Compliance of FA order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 12.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. I Divesh Kumar, ME 1, 243856-W Serving Sailor of Indian Navy and presently posted at INS Eksila, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam.Page 1 of 6
I was posted at Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam for PMT Duty from 24 Apr 22 to 04 Sep 23. During the interim period, you are requested to furnish some important following documents related to me and my summary trial.
(a) Certified true copy (CTC) of NCB (V) Letter 203/243856-W dated 07 Mar 23 vide Genform 2200634/5 dated 07 Mar 23.
(b) Certified true copy (CTC) of duty roster of Security Chief (Guard Commander) & Security Sentry for Navy house from 28 Apr 22 to 20 Jan 23 and 24 Mar 23.
(c) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of Navy house Duty personnel (Security Chief and Security Sentry) book/register of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam from 01 Dec 22 to 20 Jan 23.
(d) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of handing & taking over book of Navy house Security Chief and Security Sentry from 01 Dec 22 to 20 Jan
23.
(e) Certified true copy (CTC) of CCTV footages of camera which is installed near Security post at Navy House, Visakhapatnam from 01 Dec 22 to 20 Jan 23.
(f) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of MLR Liberty Book of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam from 15 Dec 22 to 10 Mar 23.
(g) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of Duty Ashore book of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam from 15 Dec 22 to 10 Mar 23.
(h) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of Quarter Master handing & taking over book of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam from 13 Feb 23 to 10 Mar 23.
(i) Certified true copy (CTC) of extract of counselling records from Counselling/interview register of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam from 24 Apr 22 to 04 Sep 23.
(j) Certified true copy (CTC) of CCTV Footages of cameras of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam for the various places e.g., sheet bend, Main Gate (both cameras), VIP Gate/Helipad (Parade Ground Centre), QM Duty Post area and Admin Building entrance from 14 Dec 22 to 10 Mar
23.
(k) Certified true copy (CTC) of Daily orders of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam for 27 Feb 23, 02 Mar 23, 07 Mar 23, 08 Mar 23, 09 Mar 23, 25 Mar 23 03 Sep 23.
(l) Certified true copy (CTC) of General Request with all remarks and reply of this General request which was put up on 02 Mar 23 at Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam.Page 2 of 6
(m) Certified true copy (CTC) of all Quarter Master Duty roster of Naval Coast Battery, Visakhapatnam from the period of 12 Feb 23 to 10 Mar 23 and 23 Jun 23 to 11 Aug 23."
2. The CPIO/Commander furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.01.2024 stating as under:
"Query wise response to your RTI application based on inputs received from NCB(V) is as follows:-
(a) Query 1 (a). copy of documents attached.
(b) Query 1 (b) to (m). The information sought by you pertains to Summary Trial. Hence, it is a service-related grievance. Therefore, you are advised to approach through proper channel which already existing in Service for redressed of any grievance as per extant regulations.
Further, information sought by pertains to security organization of Indian Navy, hence, cannot be provided as per section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2024. The FAA order is Not on record.
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.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 24.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the Respondent was incomplete and evasive.
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 Page 3 of 6 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/2024/617209 dated 06 Aug 25 iro 243856-W, LME Divesh Kumar scheduled at 1120 Hrs on 02 Sep 25.
2. Background.
The appellant, 243856-W, LME Divesh Kumar (A serving sailor of IN), vide his RTI Application dated 12 Nov 23 and subsequent First Appeal dated 16 Feb 24 had sought for various documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings.
3. Response by PIO.
The RTI Application 12 Nov 23, was disposed off by PIO vide letter dated 12 Jan 24. Therein, wrt the Query 1(a), a copy of NCB(V) genform no. 2200634/S dated 07 Mar 23 was provided and the information sought wrt Queries 1(b) to 1(1) was denied to the appellant quoting Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 and further stating that the information wrt copy of documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings may be sought through the extant service mechanism.
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 in response to Query 1(a), PIO has provided a copy of NCB(V) genform no 2200634/S dated 07 Mar 23, whereas, he had sought for CTC of NCB(V) letter no 203/243856-W dated 07 Mar 23, Additionally, the appellant stated that he was provided incomplete Summary Trial documents on 26 Jul 23.
5. Response by FAA.
In disposal to the First Appeal dated 16 Feb 24, the FAA vide letter dated 03 May 24, upheld the decision of PIO inter-alia intimating the appellant that the information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under extant Naval Regulations. Thus in the absence of very basis for invoking the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, your appeal is hereby rejected.
6. Justification for Response of PIO and Order of FAA Page 4 of 6 6.1 Justification for Response by PIO. The appellant had sought for various documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings. Therein. information sought wrt the Query 1(a), a copy of NCB(V) genform no. 2200634/S dated 07 Mar 23 erroneously provided by NCB(V) was forwarded to the appellant and the information sought wrt Queries 1(b) to 1(1) was denied to the appellant quoting Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 and further stating that the information wrt copy of documents pertaining to his Summary Trial Proceedings may be sought through the extant service mechanism. The documents sought by the appellant can also be requested for through extant service mechanism.
6.2 Justification for Order of FAA. On perusal of the records, it was 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. Therefore, FAA disposed off the appeal inter-alia intimating the appellant that the information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under extant Naval Regulations. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Courts and L'd CIC in catena of various judgements have held that, if any information can be accessed through the mechanism provided under another statute, then the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be resorted to as there is absence of very basis for invoking the provisions of the RTI Act, namely, lack of transparency
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."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point- wise reply has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.01.2024. The Appellant has sought information relating to his Summary Trial Proceedings and other service-related records. The Respondent submitted that the Page 5 of 6 documents sought are part of the service/disciplinary mechanism and can be accessed through the statutory remedies available under the Naval Regulations.
9. The Commission observes that the grievance of the Appellant essentially pertains to disciplinary proceedings and falls within the ambit of service matters, which are outside the jurisdiction of adjudication under the RTI Act. The RTI Act is not the forum to adjudicate upon or redress grievances arising out of disciplinary proceedings or service matters. The Appellant has an alternate efficacious remedy available under the relevant Service Regulations. He is free to avail the same and, if so advised, challenge the decision of the disciplinary authority before the competent forum as per law. The Commission finds that submissions made by the Respondent are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed 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)