Appellant sought information on his medical treatment, dismissal from the service & reasons for not providing salary for nineteen months despite joining the service - Respondent: BSF is exempt u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial of information upheld
7 Apr, 2016ORDER
1. Shri Maya Shankar filed an application dated 19.12.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Border Security Force (BSF), seeking information on twentyone points pertaining to his medical treatment and suspension from service, including (i) documents relating to any enquiry conducted before sentencing him to fifty five days of rigorous detainment as per Section 62 of BSF; (ii) names of officers who posted the appellant to Army Control Operational duty at Kargil despite his ailing medical condition; and (iii) why was he denied salary even after joining the service; etc.
2. The appellant filed the second appeal dated 08.02.2014 before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Maya Shankar attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Girish Chandra, SI (Ministerial) BSF was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he has been wrongfully dismissed from the service and that false allegations have been levied against him. The appellant further submitted that he has been seeking information on his medical treatment, wrongful dismissal from the service and reasons why he has not been provided salary for nineteen months despite joining the service
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant cannot be provided as the BSF has been exempted under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. The Commission observes that information sought by the appellant are grievances that cannot be remedied before the Commission and that there are other forums for grievance redressal. Further, the Commission agrees to the submission of the respondent and observes that the BSF has been exempted under Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: of the RTI Act. The information sought does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Therefore, provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to the BSF. Hence, information sought by the appellant cannot be provided.
7. With the above observation the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Maya Shankar Singh v. Battalion Border Security Force in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/000766/SB