Central Information Commission
Shri Birender Kumar vs Army Medical Corps Centre School, ... on 11 September, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00677 dated 10-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Birender Kumar
Respondent: Army Medical Corps Centre School, Lucknow
ORDER
In our decision of 18.7.2008, we had directed as follows:
"On issue No.1 there is no explanation from the respondents. Cdr. Medical Corps Centre School, Lucknow will, therefore, show cause in writing by 31st July, 2008 as to why he should not be held liable for penalty @ Rs. 250/- a day from the date when information sought became due i.e. 18-10-06 to 1-2-07 when the information sought was supplied to appellant Shri Birender Kumar amounting to Rs. 18,750/-.
On issue No. 2 appellant has submitted that he has not received a reply to question No.3 in his original application. We find that this issue has not been raised in his second appeal before us by appellant. However, since the question does exist in the original application, PIO, Lt. Col. S.K. Raj will now supply appellant with a response to this question within 15 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
The case was listed for hearing on 18th July, 2008 through videoconference. The decision was ex parte since because as noted in the decision "CPIO Hq. Medical Corps Centre at Lucknow and Appellate Authority, Hq. Army Medical Corps Centre are absent although arrangements had been made to hear them at the NIC Centre, Lucknow." Whereas the appellant appeared before the Commission, respondents could not be heard even though they were present at the NIC Studio Lucknow. We have subsequently learned that because of a sound problem in the studio at NIC Lucknow, respondents were under confusion as to where who was located after re-location. Thereafter Lt. Col. S.K. Raj, SRO appeared personally before us on 31.7.08. He submitted a letter from Maj. Gen. G. Ramdas, First Appellate Authority together with supporting documents.1
On ISSUE NO. 1, the following is the response:
"(a) Issue No. 1. As regard issue No. 1, it is submitted that the application dated 18th Sept 2006 of Shri Birender Kumar, appellant was received in this office on 29th Sept 2006 through HQ Army Medical Corps Centre & School, Lucknow vide their letter No. 1909/Gen/Welfare dated 27th Sep 2006 (copy attached). The case being too old and being a case of deserter the documents were not readily available and as a result a suitable reply could not be furnished to the appellant in time. The lapse on that part is highly regretted and the honourable commission is earnestly requested to kindly condone the delay considering the elaborate procedure required in tracing the old deserter documents and delay caused is due to inadvertence without any malafide intention."
"The appellant is corresponding with this office since 1985 and all queries related to his dismissal from service have been clarified time and again by this office."
Maj. Gen. Ramdas has also submitted that the appellant has made a number of queries and also been responded to in the past.
On ISSUE NO. 2, Appellant has been informed earlier, but as per our directions a "fresh reply" has been supplied to him. A copy of this reply was appended and states as follows:
"In regard to queries raised vide Para 3 of your application dated 18th Sep 2006, the following is intimated:-
(a) You were enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 24th July 1974 and while serving with Army Hospital Delhi Cantt, you absented without leave with effect from 08th Sept 1981 from unit line. Accordingly, apprehension roll was issued on 09th Sept 1981 vide Army Hospital Delhi Cantt apprehension roll No. 1909/Coy dated 09th Sep 1981. As you had not reported for duty, therefore, a court of inquiry was held on 09th Oct 1981 at Army Hospital Delhi Cantt in terms of Army Act 1950 Section 160 and you were declared illegally absent from duty w.e.f. 08th Sept 1981 by the legally constituted court of Inquiry.
(b) Consequent to becoming an Army deserter, after three years from the date of decision you were dismissed from service 2 on 20th Oct 1984 by the order of Commandant AMC Centre and School Lucknow under the provisions contained in Army Act 1950 Section 20 (3), Army Order 439/63 and SRO 180 of 1983 vide Records AMC (General) Part II order No. 253/21/84 dated 13th Nov 1984.
With regard to your prayer before the honourable commission, the following is intimated:-
(a) You are asking for certified copy of order dated 20th Oct 1980 whereas no such order was endorsed on that date.
However, you were dismissed from service on 20th Oct 1984 by the order of Commandant AMC Centre and school, Lucknow under the provision of Army Act 1950, Section 20 (3), Army Order 439/63 and SRO 180 of 1983 vide Records AMC (General) Part II order No. 253/21/84 dated 13th Nov 1984. In this regard photocopies of following document are hereby forwarded for your information:-
i) Records AMC (General) Part II order No. 253/21/84 dated 13th Nov 1984 vide which your service was terminated.
ii) Page No. 4 of your service document (Sheet Roll) where orders regarding your dismissal from service are incorporated.
iii) A copy of discharge certificate which is issued in lieu of Discharge book (IAFY- 1964) (in case of deserter) is enclosed.
(b) No order of termination was served on you as you were illegally absent. However, intimation regarding your dismissal was communicated to your wife Smt. Godawari Devi vide this office Letter No. 13938035/DD/SR/86 dated 26th Feb 1986 (photocopy attached).
(c) Opportunity for hearing was not possible as you were illegally absent from service and your where about was not known to authority."
In light of the above, we are satisfied that the orders issued by us with regard to Issue No. 2 stand complied with. However, the fact of delay in response has in fact been admitted even though a plea has been made for condoning because the intent was not malafide and applicant had been making repeated applications to the Unit. This plea alone is unsustainable because delay in response can only be condoned if reasonable cause for the same is shown, which in this case has not been. Also, the plea that old deserter 3 documents were difficult to trace is unacceptable because if this were indeed so, appellant could have been suitably informed within the mandated time period. However, as first appellate authority has submitted, the information now provided had in fact been provided earlier. The information sought had become due on 29.10.07 but supplied only on 1.2.07, as admitted by respondent which makes CPIO Lt. Col. S.K.Raj liable for penalty @ Rs. 250/- a day amounting to Rs. 23,500/-
Maj. Gen. G. Ramdas is directed to determine when the reply now sent on July 30 was indeed sent earlier, and if so, if this were before the date on which a reply was due i.e. 29.10.'07. If so, PIO Col Raj is exempt from liability for penalty. If not, Maj. Gen Ramdas will recover this amount from Lt. Col. S. K. Raj, either directly or through deduction from his salary in installments not exceeding Rs 5,000/- per month, beginning 3rd Oct., 2008. He will remit the same to Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110011. In either case action will be taken under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Deputy Secretary and Joint Registrar of this Commission.
Announced in open chamber this 11th day of September 2008. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 11.9.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 11.9.2008 4