Information regarding deployment of army men to other country (UN & Bhutan) for specific mission - CIC expressed its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the Bombay Engineering Group & Centre and issued advisory u/s 25(5); Organise basic training for PIO
10 Jul, 2021
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding deployment of army men/employee by company/units to other country (UN & Bhutan) for specific mission:
1. Certified copy of the instructions/rules/standing orders, on the basis of which company / unit sends its army men/ employees to other country (UN & Bhutan).
2. Provide the information about the number of times the army men/ employees have been deployed by company/units to other country since January 2005 to till date. Provide the certified copy of the list of Army men /employees with designation, date of appointment who have been sent to other country by the company/Unit since January 2005 to till date.
3. Whether any criteria was fixed for selection of Army men/ employees for sending to other country for specific mission. lf yes, provide the certified copy of documents which mention the criteria for sending any Army men abroad.
And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide any information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had not received any information from the CPIO except for a letter dated 08.02.2019 wherein it was stated that the application dated 05 Sep 2018 was erroneously dispatched to the Headquarters and the same was returned to him for taking further necessary action.
The respondent was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 20.02.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED656594329IN.
Observations:
The Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO, Bombay Engineering Group & Centre during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Further, as per the facts on record it is prima-facie evident that no reply has been provided on this particular RTI Application till date by the CPIO or if any reply was given, there is nothing on record from where it could be ascertained that a reply was given nor was the respondent present to inform the same.
Interim Decision:
Based on the above observations, the present CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant as per the availability of the records with them within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Moreover, the CPIO’s conduct in not providing a reply on the RTI Application and also not attending the Commission’s hearing was viewed seriously. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to appear before the bench on 23.03.2021 at 01.50 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and (2) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents upon which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission atleast two days prior to the hearing via link-paper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.
The case is adjourned accordingly.
Date of hearing: 23/03/2021
Date of decision: 26/03/2021
The following were present: Respondent: Not present
Observations:
Since no one was present from the respondent authority, the registry attached to this bench took an extra step and contacted the concerned PIO who informed that the hearing notice has not been received by them and therefore being unaware that the hearing was fixed for today, they were unable to attend the hearing. It is noted that since the respondent organisation is not in receipt of any hearing notice, it will be against the principles of fair hearing if any penal action is initiated without affording an opportunity to the CPIO to defend the case. The case is therefore adjourned and a show cause notice is again issued to the concerned PIO.
Decision
In view of this, the Commission directs the PIO, Major Rajnath Singh, BEG Records, BEG and Centre alongwith Col. J Satpathy to appear before the bench on 23.04.2021 at 02.00 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and (2) of the RTI Act. The PIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents upon which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission atleast five days prior to the hearing via link-paper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission or the subject matter relates to some other organisation, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well. The PIO should note that any excuse like the matter is not related to them, etc will not be accepted at such a later stage and he will be held accountable for absence of any concerned officer in case he fails to serve this order to them. The registry attached to this bench is directed to send a copy of this order to the above named PIO through speed post and on his email id jyotisatpathy@gmail.com and also to contact him to ensure his presence on the next date of hearing.
The present PIO is also directed to provide complete information to the appellant as per the availability of the records with them within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The show-cause proceeding is accordingly adjourned.
Date of Hearing: 23/04/2021
Date of Decision: 23/04/2021
The following were present:
Respondent: Lt. Manoj Pal, the present PIO, heard over phone and submissions received from Major Rajnath, the then CPIO.
Submissions made by the Respondent during Hearing:
The Commission is in receipt of the written submissions dated 06.04.2021 from the respondent authority, Bombay Engineer Group, Kirkee. While explaining the cause of being absent during the last two hearings, he submitted that the notice of hearing dated 11.02.2021 was received at Bombay Engineer Group & Centre, Kirkee, Pune on 20.02.2021, however, the same was misplaced. He further submitted that although another notice of hearing dated 08.03.2021 was received by the registry Section of Bombay Engineer Group on 13.03.2021 but the same was handed over to the PIO Records, Bombay Engineer Group, Kirkee, Pune on 26.03.2021 i.e. when the hearing was already done. Since he was unaware about both of the scheduled hearings, therefore he was not able to attend any hearing. He tendered an apology and submitted that there was no deliberate disobedience on his part while performing the duties of the PIO and the delay occurred due to non-receipt of the correspondence on the subject matter.
As far as the RTI application was concerned, he submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 04.12.2018 by 102 Engineer Regiment.
Observations:
From a perusal of the detailed written submissions of the concerned PIO, it is noted that even though a reply was given to the appellant on 04.12.2018, however, the same was delayed and the reply was also not proper. Regarding the issue of delay, the Commission finds the submissions to be justified as initially the RTI application was transferred to 102 Engineer Regiment on 29.09.2018 u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act as the matter was related to them. Thereafter due to non-receipt of the enclosure by them, the Records Office, Engineer Group, Kirkee vide the letter dated 13.10.2018 was requested to resend the enclosure to them. On 03.11.2018, a copy of the RTI application was again forwarded to 102 Engineer Regiment and a point-wise reply was given on 04.12.2018. The Commission while accepting the submissions of the CPIO, however, holds that the above mentioned RTI application was handled very badly and it shows that the RTI matters are being handled in a very negligent manner.
The Commission expresses its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the respondent organisation as a whole for showing such laxity while handling the RTI applications and the correspondence related to it and to the then CPIO for being negligent in handling the RTI application.
After going through the contents of the said reply, it is noted that even though a point-wise reply was given but the same was grossly improper as while denying the information, no exemption as envisaged under the provisions of the RTI Act was claimed by the CPIO. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant and in the event of any information being denied, the proper exemption clause with justification should be claimed.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee office needs to evolve a system to ensure proper receipt & dispatch of the RTI correspondence by the CPIOs/Deemed PIOs/FAAs and maintain a proper record of every RTI application received and replied to by the organisation. The internal management of RTI applications and handling of replies timely is an area that needs much improvement in the organization. An advisory is issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Commandant, Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee Pune to improve the dak management system of the office & to maintain a proper record of each and every RTI application which is received in the organisation and to whom it is marked for action to prevent misplacement and mishandling of RTI correspondence and also to organise basic training programmes for the CPIOs and the deemed PIOs to familiarize them with the provisions of the RTI Act so that these kinds of mistakes are not repeated in future.
The show-cause proceedings are accordingly closed.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Gurmeet Singh v. Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/111340, Date of Decision: 04/03/2021, 26/03/2021, 23/04/2021