Central Information Commission
Vikas vs Border Security Force on 28 April, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BDRSF/A/2018/636533
Shri Vikas ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Border Security Force ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Block No. 10, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
Pragati Vihar, New Delhi - 110003
Date of Hearing : 22.04.2020
Date of Decision-Interim : 28.04.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.08.2018
PIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : No date
First Appellate Order on : No order
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 06.12.2018
ORDER
The captioned appeal emanates from RTI application dated 18.08.2018 whereby the Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Physical inspection of complete records pertaining to the application of applicant vikas Ex Insp BSF and process thereafter for grant of No objection certificate for applying for the employment in Punjab police services from 06/10/2013 to 08/02/2014.
2. Physical inspection of complete records of copies of notesheets with applicable rules as quoted for granting permission to Ex inspector Manish katiyar of 41 Bn BSF and also of Insp Prem Kumar Singh of 120 Bn who were granted permission for employment in Punjab police department on 05/11/2013 and 20.03.2016.
3. Complete physical inspection of files processed for opinions on 21.05.2014 and thereafter opinion given by personnel/finance/PAD BSF by UO Note dated 10.09.2014.
4. Copies of all opinion given by PAD BSF on receiving notice of motion dated 20.04.2015 in CWP filed by applicant in honourable high court and any other opinion w.r.t any case of Ex Inspector vikas of BSF, air wing, SAP, New Delhi.
5. Complete inspection of files processed after order dated 20.09.2016 of honourble Punjab and Haryana High court for compliance of directions.
Complete notesheet processed for opinion from PAD and thereafter opinion/reply given by PAD.
6. Inspection of details of inquiry report submitted by first presiding officer in staff court of Inquiry dated 14.01.2015 in year 2015 and also details of report submitted by second presiding office against additional staff court of Inquiry in 2017.
7. Physical inspection of details of orders of competent authority after report of additional staff court of Inquiry with complete observation on record for cancellation of additional Inquiry dated 28.02.2017.
Upon non receipt of any reply from the PIO, he filed a First Appeal, which also proved futile and he did not receive any information/reply. Hence, second Appeal was filed by the appellant citing the following grounds:
1) circular dated 04.02.2006 issued by DG, BSF w.r.t information under Right to Information Act 2005
2) poor & miserable condition of the junior ranked personnel which may be due to deep rooted corruption and enjoyment of protection of these corrupt andcriminals by their senior supervisory officers.
3) Cases of one of the Constable namely Tej Bahadur and few other cases are alsoavailable in public domain.
4) Despite fulfilling all criteria as per existing provisions of law, CPIO as well as firstappellant authority (FAA) has illegally not responded to protect corrupt andcriminals operated in the organisation.
5) With the approval of request for information under RTI Act 2005, sufficientevidences against few corrupt and criminal staff and officers of BSF, Air WING,SAP, New Delhi can very easily be gathered and suitable criminal suit can veryeasily be filed against criminals by unmasking them in front of court of law.
6) Even as per BSF Act and Rule, RULE 38 clarify the quantum of punishment to such criminals.
The Respondent public authority is enlisted in Second Schedule of the RTI Act and as such, exempt from provisions of this Act. The only exception carved out to the rule is wherein information sought relates to allegations of corruption/human rights violations and approval to disclosure is accorded by this Commission. Hence, the foremost contentious point which arises in the instant case is of the maintainability of the present appeal. Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 lays that:
24. Act not to apply to certain organizations.-
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.
Proceedings during hearing:
Due to nation-wide lockdown being observed, to prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings are being conducted through audio conference.
The appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number: 8968159599. He has submitted a detailed written submission which indicates inter alia his contentions about subject matter of the appeal not excluded by Act under section 24(1) and he has pointed out his endeavour to:
----bring to notice the poor and miserable condition of junior ranked personnel due lack of any grievance redressal mechanism in BSF (violation of basic rights like principle of natural justice etc.).
----lift the corporate veil by unmasking gang of corrupt and criminals working in unison to justify their criminal and corrupt activities.
The appellant has raised question as to whether Section 24(1) r/w second schedule of RTI Act 2005 provides a blanket cover to BSF to deny all information wherever any application under RTI Act 2005 filed.
Decision: Interim In order to adjudicate the issues raised by the appellant, it is imperative that both parties are heard, at length. Since it is not possible in the current scenario, it is deemed fit that the instant appeal be re-scheduled and another date of hearing be fixed.
Appeal may be re-scheduled for hearing in the normal course.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514