CPIO shall provide a copy of the findings and conclusions - If it is being denied, it has to be done under the RTI Act and not as per the Army Act - CIC: PIO shall reconsider all the points of the RTI application; Denial with suitable exemption clauses
14 Oct, 2022
Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information with reference to Ch-8 of Handbook for “Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authority” and an extract of FFI forwarded along with SCN issued vide ref No. A/99670/Complaint/RN & RSM/2019/DGQA (Vig Cell) dated 06/04/2021:.
a. Provide copy of the relevant extract of the 'Report' (if any) under which any misconduct on the part of the appellant was reported by the FFI.
b. In case of non-availability of information sought in point 1 above, provide copies of Government Orders enumerating provisions under which the case was not closed till date.
c. Date of receipt of FFI Report at the concerned office of the DGQA.
d. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that Para 6 and 7 of the FFI are missing from the documents provided to him and in para 8 onwards, they masked some information and gave photocopies. He was also not given a certified true copy which he had asked for. The CPIO submitted that findings and conclusions were not given as per Army HQ policy. On a query during the hearing, he claimed exemption as per Sec 10 of the RTI Act.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated03.06.2021 replied to the appellant and enclosed a note dated 31.05.2021 received from the custodian. The appellant was informed as follows:
“a. The case for administrative action against Brigadier Rajeev Negi is presently under analysis.
b. Most of the information sought in the said RTI applications are only inferences drawn or assumptions made by the applicant and the applicant has not specified the documents sought by him.
c. Disclosure of information regarding the dates and the officials dealing has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
d. Relevant extracts of DGQA Accommodation Rules and CQAL Officers Mess Rules and CQA (L), Bengaluru letter dated 15.12.2020 (showing notional loss) have already been provided to the applicant alongwith showcause notice referred in his RTI applications.
The Deputy Director Vigilance had also summed up stating that the subject application under the RTI cannot be disclosed under the provisions of Sec 8(h) and (j) of the RTI Act.
The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 02.07.2021 held that as per the RTI Act each RTI application has to be dealt with separately and also all the information may not be available with DGQA/Vigilance which could be easily be available at CQA(L) Bengaluru. Such RTI application or relevant paragraphs thereof may be transferred by CPIO HQ DGQA to PIO Bengaluru, u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, for reply to the corresponding part of the RTI application.
The Commission observed that the FAA’s order was without any timeline fixed for compliance on the part of the CPIO. However, on 04.08.2021 the CPIO sent a reply enclosing the letter of the Vigilance Cell of 08.07.2021.
The reply dated 08.07.2021 was perused in which the Deemed PIO provided the copy of the relevant extracts of the FFI, which has already been provided to the appellant alongwith the showcause notice referred to in his RTI application. In respect of points no. (b) to (l) the CPIO replied that the case for administrative action against the appellant is presently under progress and disclosure of any information at this stage may impede the process. It was also stated that there is no public interest and the RTI application is an attempt to derail the administrative action against him. The information sought was also denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The Deemed PIO was therefore asked to explain why despite the FAA’s order he provided a general reply and all the points of the RTI application were not addressed, to which he could not provide a justified reason.
Decision:
Be that as it may, the CPIO shall provide a copy of the findings and conclusions, and in any case if this is being denied, it has to be done under the RTI Act and not as per the Army Act. The CPIO shall reconsider all the points of the RTI application and information wherever denied shall be supported with suitable exemption clauses under the RTI Act within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. The CPIO shall note that Sec 10 is a severability clause and not denial clause.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Brig Rajeev Negi v. Directorate General of Quality Assurance in CIC/DGOQA/A/2021/145190, Date of Decision: 19/09/2022