Central Information Commission
Mr.V K Shad vs Ministry Of Defence on 29 October, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002144
(Col. V.K. Shad -Vs- Indian Army)
Dated : 29.10.2012
It may be recalled that this matter was heard by this Commission on 28.9.2012. The
proceedings of the day are extracted herein-below :-
"File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002144
Appellant : Col. V. K. Shad
Respondent : Indian Army
Date of hearing : 28.9.2012
Date of decision : 28.9.2012
FACTS
Heard today dated 28.9.2012. Appellant present. The Army is represented by Col. Pankaj Kumar Singh, D.V. HQ 2 Corps and Col. Ravinder Passi, (PIO), HQ 2 Corps.
2. The matter, in short, is that the appellant is a serving Colonel in the Army, presently on deputation to NSG. It is his say that COI initiated against him has been completed on 10.2.2011. Vide RTI application dated 1.8.2011, he had sought the following information:-
"(a) Opinion and findings of the Court of Inquiry.
(b) Recommendations of staff and Cdrs in chain of Comd. (c ) Directions of the competent Auth.
(d) All file notings prepared in HQ 2 Corps and HQ PH&HP (I) Sub Area while processing the Court of Inquiry.
(e) I may also be allowed to peruse all correspondence on the ibid subject maintained in relevant files at HQ 2 Corps (A) and (DV) branches, HQ PH&HP (I) Sub Area (A) and (DV), branches and HQ 786 (I) AD Vide, to enable me to take photocopies of relevant letters in the particular files.
I may please be info place & date where these files would be made available to me."
3. The PIO had responded to it vide letter dated 12.9.2011, denying the information under clauses (g) & (h) of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. On appeal the AA, in order dated 22.10.2011, had upheld the decision of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the above decisions, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the COI has been completed and, therefore, clauses (g) & (h) of section 8 (1) are not applicable in the present case. On the other hand, Col. Singh and Col. Passi submit that COI has not been completed in the strict sense of the term inasmuch as the GOC 2 Corps had ordered issue of show cause notice to the appellant but the appellant did not respond to it and rather sought a stay from the AFT, Chandimandir Branch, thereby disabling the competent authority to take a decision on the show cause notice. It is their contention that until the fate of the show cause notice is decided by GoC 2 Corps, investigation cannot be said to have been completed in terms of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and, therefore, the requested information cannot be supplied to the appellant.
6. On the other hand, the appellant relies on Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.2.2011 in LPA No. 603/ 2002 (Maj. R. K. Sareen vs. Union of India & Ors.) in which a Division Bench of the Court has held that non-supply of findings / directions and recommendations of the CoI amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and for this reason had set aside the order of punishment inflicted on the concerned officer. Paras 35 and 38 of the order are reproduced below:-
"35. In the instant case, in view of the fact that the award of punishment is an administrative action it was incumbent upon LPA 603/2002 Page 20 of 23 the GOC to observe the rules of natural justice while awarding said punishment to the appellant. A bare reading of the show cause notice dated 28.04.1995 and the order dated 25.08.1995, extracted in foregoing paras, shows that the findings, directions and recommendation of the Court of Inquiry weighed heavily with the GOC in awarding punishment of censure to the appellant. In such circumstances, the rules of natural justice require that the GOC ought to have supplied the findings, directions and recommendations of the Court of Inquiry to the appellant along with the show cause notice dated 28.04.1995. The non- supply of the said documents to the appellant implies that the appellant has not been granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and has resulted in violation of rules of natural justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the order dated 25.08.1995 passed by the GOC awarding punishment of censure by way of severe displeasure to the appellant is liable to be quashed as the same is violative of rules of natural justice. Ordered accordingly.
7. Col. Singh and Col. Passi submit that they are not aware of this order and would like to have a copy thereof for formulating their response in the matter. In the premises, it is ordered that a copy of the High Court order may be supplied to the Col. Singh 'dasti' today itself. The matter is adjourned to 29th October, 2012 at 1230 hrs. Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner"
2. As scheduled, the matter is heard today dated 29.10.2012 at 1300 hours. Appellant present. However, nobody has appeared for the Army despite the fact that the Commission has waited for half an hour. The Commission is, therefore, constrained to dispose of this matter on the basis of material on record.
3. The request for information made by the appellant has been enumerated in para 02 of the proceedings of 28.9.2012 which need not be reproduced. In the light of the Delhi High Court ruling extracted herein above, I am of the opinion that information requested for in para 02(a) is disclosable to the appellant. As regards para 2 (b), the recommendations of Staff and Commanders in chain of command are also disclosable to the appellant. In view of this, paras (c) and (d) become redundant. However, the request of the appellant regarding para (e) cannot be accepted as giving inspection of records would open up flood-gates and would make the system unmanageable considering the number of Commissioned Officers in the Army and the volume of work which such inspections may entail.
4. In view of the above, it is ordered that information requested for in paras 2(a) and 2(b) may be supplied to the appellant.
5. Col. Ravinder Passi, CPIO, HQ 2 Corps is hereby directed to comply with this order in 04 weeks time.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner 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.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell(Edn. Branch), HQ 2 Corps, PIN 908502, c/o 56-APO.
2. Col. V.K. Shad, Gp. Cdr. Logistics Group, NSG Manesar, Gurgaon-122051.