Central Information Commission
Jagdeep Singh Minhas vs Bureau Of Civil Aviation Security on 14 October, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/BOCAS/C/2019/640736
Cdr. Jagdeep Singh Minhas (Retd) िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 13.10.2021
Date ofDecision : 14.10.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.11.2018
PIO replied on : 14.12.2018
First Appeal filed on : 21.01.2019
First Appellate Order dated : 02.04.2019
Complaint dated : 17.05.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2018 seeking information on the following points:-
1. Refer your letter CAS-18053/1/2016-OPS/II-DIV-BCAS (E-117204) and Company Termination Notice to me (SJ/HR/2018/112971 dated 09 Oct, 2018 (Not addressed to you).
2. Vide their letter the company claims that vide letter No. CAS-02/59/2015-
OPERATIONAL DIVISION-BCAS (E-127895) dated 11 Sep 2018, "that you were responsible for the entire Security Breach", and "you failed to honour the Rule laid down by the regulator".
3. The undersigned is not privy to your letter quoted at Para 2 above and in the dark on contravention of which Rule of BCAS he is being held guilty of. Whilst it is not clear if indeed BCAS found the under signed guilty of anything, it is quite obvious the correspondence directly related to him have been exchanged between Company and the Regulator, WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION TO HIM. Your above letter, your Show Cause notice to the Company dated 23 Aug 2018, the Company response dated 29 Aug 2018 are all instants of keeping me in the dark on subject directly relating to me. This is an unfair procedure. In finding me guilty, you have not asked me an explanation of my actions. Nor have you intimated your reasons to pronounce me guilt of any misdemeanor, Page 1 of 3 but have proceeded to ask for punitive measures to be initiated. In this context it must be remembered that RD, Gauhati was asked to inquire into the Incident at Gauhati of the 03 May 2018. What were the findings of the rd and views of the DG on those finding, no correspondence on this issue was ever addressed to me.
4. Finally the undersigned requests reason for the inordinate delay in bringing this case to a close. The occurrence dated 03 May was reported to you by Spice Jet on 10 May. In spite of personal contact emails and letters, the case remained open till 28 Sep. Only on account of an RTI application did the Bureau by mail distanced itself from the seizure of the undersigned's AEP.
Etc The CPIO/Deputy Director, vide letter dated 14.12.2018 intimated that the information called for by the Appellant pertains to aviation security related matters and in terms of provisions of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005, such information which pertain to security cannot be provided.
Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.01.2019. The FAA/Deputy Director General, vide letter dated 02.04.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied theComplainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Complainant participated in the hearing through audio conference. While explaining the background of the matter, he stated that information was denied without any reasons or justification despite the fact that the same pertained to his own disciplinary proceedings and withdrawal of Airport Entry Permit (AEP).
The Respondent represented by Shri Ved Prakash, CPIO and Dy Director, BCAS and Shri R.K. Bharadwaj, Civil Aviation Security Officer, BCAS participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Bharadwaj stated that a petition has been filed by the Complainant before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where the BCAS is also a party. The next date of hearing in the case has been scheduled for 22.10.2021. However, no plausible explanation for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1)
(a) of the RTI Act was provided by the Respondent.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that exemption has been claimed u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the CPIO without any clear justification or reasons which is against Page 2 of 3 Section 7 (8) (i) of the Act. The plea of the Respondent regarding the ongoing matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also bears no relevance to the facts of the instant case since the RTI Act does not provide for any exemption u/s 8 as per which information can be denied merely on the ground that the matter is sub- judice. Since, this is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be allowed, the Commission directs Shri Ved Prakash, CPIO and Dy. Director, BCAS to show cause and submit an explanation to the Commission stating the reasons/ justifications for claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 by 30.11.2021.
With the above direction, the instant Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3