Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Bak Shemana vs Ministry Of Defence on 16 May, 2025

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2024/105681


BAK Shemana                                      .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
HQ Base Wksp Gp EME,
Meerut Cantt. - 250001                           ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    14.05.2025
Date of Decision                    :    15.05.2025


INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:


RTI application filed on            :    26.09.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    06.11.2023
First appeal filed on               :    23.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order   :    26.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    21.02.2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 26.09.2023 seeking the following information:

"(a) Kindly provide the copy of approved MCM Review Board convened vide Directorate General of EME Order No. B/15198/MCM/EME (Civ) (C-

4) dated 20th June, 2016 along-with a copy of the Seniority list considered by the said Board while recommending the promotions to the post of MCM.

(b) Kindly provide the copy of Board Proceedings of the Addendum Board of Officers approved vide Directorate General of EME Order No. B/15198/MCM (Addendum Bd)/EME (Civ) (C-4) dated 28th April, 2023 along with a copy of the revised seniority list considered by the said Board.

(c) Kindly provide the copy of review MCM Board, if any, concluded consequent upon the approval of Addendum Board of Officers in OA 605 of 2021 before the Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai along-with a copy of the order under which MCM promotions already granted vide HQ Base Wksp Gp EME Meerut Cant.'s letter No. 20801/MCM/Est/T-7 dated 22 May 2018 for the period 01/01/2006 to 14/06/2010 which have been amended. If no such action has been taken, reasons therefore may be furnished."

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.11.2023 stating as under:

"(a) Para 3 (iii) (a). Approved MCM Review Board cannot be provided being confidential in nature.

(b) Para 3 (iii) (b). Approved board proceedings of the addendum board of officer cannot be provided being confidential in nature. However, your seniority position in the board is at Ser No 96.

(c) Para 3 (iii) (c). MoD vide letter No 11(5)/2009-D(Civil) dt 14 Jun 2010 directed to amend existing recruitment rules of tradesman & RRs for the post of MCM may be framed accordingly. Formulation of RR for MCM is under process with higher authorities, hence no MCM bd conducted thereafter."

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 26.12.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

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 videoconference.

Respondent: Ms. Varuna, CPIO present through videoconference.

5. The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent ignoring the fact that requested information is needed to claim seniority in his own promotion matter. He further contended that approved proceedings of DPC/Seniority List, approved addendum board of DPC etc. are considered as public documents which should not be denied under the RTI Act.

6. The Respondent submitted that point-wise reply has already been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.11.2023. She stated that since the information sought by the Appellant are confidential in nature, therefore, it was denied to him. However, the seniority position of the Appellant was already informed to him.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that denial of information at point No. 1 and Point No. 2 (partially) of RTI application by the Respondent on the plea of it being confidential in nature, without substantiating their denial under relevant exemption clause of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act is not sustainable under the RTI Act. It is noteworthy that the Appellant being affected party is entitled to know the basis on which his seniority was decided, and his name was considered/not considered for promotion by the Board. It is a clear attempt to stonewall the right of appellant to seek justice from appropriate Court of Law. The Appellant being the affected party has every right to know the requisite information to defend his case.

8. In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to revisit the contents of Point No. 1 and 2 of RTI Application and provide relevant information to the Appellant, after redacting the personal details and identifying particulars of the third party by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. This direction should be complied by the CPIO within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.

9. For point No. 3, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA HQ Base Wksp Gp EME, Meerut Cantt. - 250001 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)