To,Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’Central Public Information OfficerDMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Subject: Application u/s 6(1) of Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
This is with reference to your Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 issued by Dr. D.N. Tripathi, Addl. Director (Admin).
Vide this order all officers & employees of DMSRDE were ordered to park their vehicles in parking area/shades near CSD Canteen with effect from 01 October 2013.
DRDO rules & procedures for construction work (minor/major) did not allow & authorize Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur to construct any building/shade/parking area or erection of any structure with in the premises of Technical and Residential area, DMSRDE.
MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of building , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction/erecting of shades/parking area etc in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.
It is also quite evident from Minute Sheet No. AE/Gen Admin/13/0578 dated 26 September 2013 that there exists building of CSD Canteen in DMSRDE near newly constructed parking area/shade.
Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given in these decisions.
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.3.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs. DRDO) Verdict – “It is, no doubt, true that DRDO is an exempted organisation; yet it has been the consistent view of this Commission that the benefit of exemption extends only to functional / operational matters and not to establishment related routine matters. The legality of this view has not been challenged in the relevant judicial forum so far”.
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC in their above mentioned decisionsconsistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
In light of the decisions of CIC and facts mentioned above,kindly provide the following information under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
The name of authorized agency for construction of parking area/shade in Technical and Residential area of DMSRDE, Kanpur as per Guidelines/Procedures/Rules .of DRDO.
The name of the agency viz MES/CCE(R&D)/Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur which constructed the said two shade for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
Provide the copy of letter sent to GE (R&D), MES, Kanpur or CCE (R&D), New Delhi for construction of these two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
Provide copy of the sanctioning letter by Director, DMSRDE or by DRDO HQ to sanction minor/major work to carry out the construction of two shades for parking area.
Total expenditure incurred in construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.
Whether these two shades for parking area has been developed by Director, DMSRDE. (Yes/No).
If answer to point (6) is yes then provide the following information
i. Name of vendor to whom the supply order was placed for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD canteen. ii. Copy of supply order placed for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen. iii. The total expenditure incurred in construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.
8. Whether any material like Cement Sheets, iron pipes, iron angles and hooks etc were purchased by MMG/Estate & Works Division/other Division under Director, DMSRDE.(Yes/No) for construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.
9. If answer to point (8) is yes then provide the copy of supply order issued by Head MMG/Director, DMSRDE to the said vendor who supplied the material for construction of two shades in parking area.
10. Name of vendor who supplied the material used for construction of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen, DMSRDE.
11. The name of vendor who carried out construction work to erect two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.
12. Whether said vendor is registered at DMSRDE for construction work/supply of store & items etc. Yes/No.
13. If answer to point (12) is yes then provide the copy of registration certificate issued by Director, DMSRDE to that vendor.
14. Mode of tendering for procurement of materials used to erect/ construction of two shades in parking area.
15. Provide copy of form DRDO.MM.06 duly filled for procurement of materials required for constructions of two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen.
16. Provide copy of CST in case mode of tendering was Limited Tender/Open Tender.
17. How many parking shades/areas were existing in DMSRDE premises for parking the vehicles, prior to construction of these two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen?
18. Prior to issue of order dated 26 September 2013, in which place the vehicles of officers & employees were parked in DMSRDE.
19. How many four wheelers and two wheelers are daily coming in DMSRDE premises along with officers & employees of DMSRDE.
20. How many four wheelers could be parked in the two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen?
21. Reasons for taking decision to park all the vehicles by all the officers & employees of DMSRDE in two shades in newly constructed parking area near CSD Canteen.
22. Whether all the vehicles (four wheelers & two wheelers) of officers & employees of DMSRDE could be parked in two shades recently constructed for parking area near CSD Canteen. (Yes/No)
23. If answer to point (22) is No then provide the numbers of four wheelers that could be parked in two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.
24. From which head of budget of DMSRDE, the funds were sanctioned for construction of these two shades in parking area by private vendor or purchase of material required for construction of two shades in parking area near CSD Canteen.
25. M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur is registered in DMSRDE as a vendor for supply of which kinds of store items and to provide which kind of services to DMSRDE.
26. Provide copy of registration certificate issued to M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, Kanpur by Director, DMSRDE.
27. The date on which the said two shades for parking area near CSD Canteen were ready after construction and work completion and clearance certificate was issued to vendor for payment.
28. Since how long (the exact date) the CSD Canteen is operational/ existing/running in DMSRDE, Kanpur.
29. In which building of DMSRDE the CSD Canteen is running/existing. Provide the building number and exact nomenclature of that building.
30. Few months back, electrical power of CSD Canteen was cut down by GE (R&D), MES, Kanpur for about 15 days. Provide the copies of correspondence between MES and DMSRDE on the issue of disconnecting the electrical power in CSD Canteen building.
31. Whether the said building in which CSD Canteen is running presently, was specially built for CSD Canteen purpose or earmarked for CSD Canteen. (Yes/No)
32. If answer to point (31) is yes, then provide the letter/order by which CSD Canteen building was constructed by MES in DMSRDE.
33. If answer to point (31) is No, then provide the exact nomenclature/name of building in which CSD Canteen is running presently in DMSRDE.
The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.
The information sought in this RTI Application is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act.
An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No.17F549290) is annexed as Annexure-1.
Shri Avinash Chandra Ji, after you joined as DRDO boss, honest and neutral official expected and hoped for good decision, good administration, good cohesive environment, hope you will shake DRDO with your full strength to get rid of incompetent stuff.
But sorry to say you disappointed the honest scientists/ staff/ officials and they are not finding any reason to stay or giving their 100% output to DRDO.
Avinash ji, collect all your good energy and get rid of the nexus of culprits who are controlling SPIC, CCE, Department of Personnel, RTI Cell, RAC, CEPTAM and some Lab heads.
Every DRDO official knows acts and deeds of these corrupt officials but sake of their carrier not coming forward but sending anonymous or fake signed letters ( inputs are correct) to Prime Minister, Defence Minister and other government agencies and of course to you also, I have also received some from various labs. (Sending bunch to Honorable Defence Minister)
The increasing numbers of court cases are also perfect examples of mismanagement in DRDO.
The decision of giving responsibility of administration/material management to scientists is also going to be a big problem in the coming time.
Perfect administration and perfect procurement is not cup of scientists. They are not able to match with laid down rules of government of India. Day by day increasing number of anomalies / audit objections in recruitments / procurement are going to be a big issues.
Dr. P S Goel’s DO letter implementing of interaction for promotion from Sc ‘ F’ to Sc ‘G’ without approval from cabinet is a clear cut case of violation of Article 309 and the repercussion now started in shape of court cases which was hampering the progress of DRDO and created demotivation among senior scientists
Same in RAC/ CEPTAM encouraging recruitment of incompetent / fake degree / diploma appointment of such candidates who are not eligible as per SRO/ appointment on the basis of nepotism/ in this respect you only see the RTI’s on these issues, you will find clear picture of the future of DRDO.
You are under the impression that corrupt CPIO, Dr A K Tyagi is protecting DRDO. It is not true, instead of exposing the corrupt practices, he is trying to bury the information and very soon these corrupt practices will sink the DRDO ship. As you aware CVC already issued advice to CVO, MoD against the Dr A K Tyagi for “Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013“and you are not taking any action to remove him for the post of CPIO, DRDO. What does it mean, it means still you are in grip of corrupt officials. A honest advice is first change your staff officer and old staff of Dr Sarswat’s time, than only you will be find some change in DRDO’s scenario.
Avinash ji, we all very well know that you are washing dirty linen of Dr V K Sarswat’s several misdeed which are the outcome of mismanagement of Dr Sarswat, because he was only on? Government agencies very well know about that, and why he was not able to get extension, Ms R. AMRUTHA VANI, SC ‘F’’s (‘Below the Bench Mark’) case, Dr Neelam Bhalla’s, Sc ‘F’ (Workplace Humiliation, Harassment, Gender discrimination & Victimisation) case etc. but problem is that you are dealing all issues with same set of officials ( Dr Sarswat’s & Dr. W Selvamurthy’s gang) who created and responsible for these kinds of hurdles in DRDO for their own wasted interest.
CEPTAM Director enjoys all type of corrupt practices like he is engaging his wife and relatives in different recruitments boards as experts. Recent CEPTAM recruitment process he introduced mandatory SMS registration (cost Rs 3 to each applicant) for his personal benefit (he worked this out this without proper procedure) and due to this almost thousands of aspirant were not able to get their admit cards. In this process lot of SC/ST candidates also suffered, you can check with records, where Government of India facilitates to SC/ST candidates in recruitments without any fee. Almost 5 lakhs candidates applied nearly one lakh rejected and thousands of candidate could not appear due remote centre problem, candidates were not given asked choice centers, they received admit cards with centers like Goa, Mizoram, Chennai, Patna.
Please go through the following letters which are self explanatory of your labs environment and administrative ability of your scientist.
Example Responsibility of Administration to Scientist – DMSRDE ION Dated 31st December 2012 a true example of DRDO helpless position – a perfect documentary evidence of how incompetency promoting in DRDO.
DMSRDE – ION Dated 31st December 2012
CEPTAM Recruitment Case – Few examples
Sh. Kamdev , SC candidate – Admit card not received reason – SMS registration
Sh. Kunal – Admit card received after one day – 5 times he registered by SMS – Delhi local but centre was Ajmer
Sh Satvir – Applied for post of welder and asked for local nearby centre Delhi but he was given centre Chennai
Mohd Shahbaz – No Admit card received/ SMS registered/ application not found
Sh Saroj Kumar- applied for 0217 Diesel Mech local Harsh Vihar, Delhi based admit card received with Centre in Patna
Sh Sandeep – applied for Fireman not received admit card – reason not known
Ms Kavita – resident of Delhi, Admit card received given exam in Kanpur centre spend Rs 4000 will Director CEPTAM reimburse or only busy minting money for himself and his relatives.
Hundreds of candidates wasted their days in front of CEPTAM reception but could not able get their admit cards.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority , DRDO
RTI Cell , Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Rajiv Chauhan
Address
1053/3, Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.)- 250005
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 received by appellant on 20 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 03 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 that “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.
(d) In point (3) of reply dated 09 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.
(e) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 03 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(f) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 03 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 03 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 03 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).
(h) It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter and public information, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.
(i) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(Public/Information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
1. CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter
(v) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(vi) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
2. Nature of information sought is not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 03 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ have violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as both did not submitted IPR , Movable property returns and valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against them under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. These officers are having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property. Both officers used black money to purchase property at high cost but declared on low cost by paying excess amount in black money for purchase of property. The black money involved in purchase of property came to them by means of corruption. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act (corruption) based on casteism as Mr. Amit Kumar, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.
5. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return & Movable Property Return of Officers“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to IPR is Public Information as it is held by Public Authority under Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964. The details of IPR, Movable Property Return, Form 16 and Salary Slip are public documents. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
6. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Form 16 giving details of salary, house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008 by Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner.
Information related to IPR is disclosable as per CIC decision in Case No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001990/5042 dated 06 October 2009 and CIC/SG/A/2011/003719/17410 dated 16 February 2012.
7. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 09 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
The information sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 and CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 dated 20 March 2008.
Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
8. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18
Every Government servant shall submit a return of his immovable property, movable and valuable property under the provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 under sub rule 18(1), 18(2), 18(3, 18(4) and 18(5). Therefore IPR, Movable property return and details of valuable property are public documents held by public authority. To submit the information under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules in prescribed format under Rule 18 are binding on each & every Government servant, therefore these are public information not the personal information. Government servants are seeking House Building Advance (HBA) of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs for purchasing of Immovable property, Car Advance, Computer advance, two wheeler advance and other various advances (loans) from Government. Therefore procurement of Immovable property, movable property and valuable property involves the public money therefore these information and documents are public information. These public documents are disclosable as per DOPT orders and CIC decisions in various cases.
9. DOPT Orders on disclosure of IPR and Movable Property
Please refer DOPT, Govt. of India Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 on the Subject “Submission of Immovable Property Returns by officers of Group A Central Services for the year 2010(as on 01.01.2011) – Placing of the public domain regarding”.
Under the provisions of Para (2) of the said OM “It has been decided that the immovable property returns submitted by members of all Group ‘A’ Services of the Central Government for the year 2010 i.e. as on 01.01.2011 will be placed in public domain by respective cadre controlling authorities by 31.05.2011“. Copy of the DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011 is enclosed as Enclosure -3.
10. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain in DRDO
As per DOPT OM dated 11th April 2011, it was binding on all Public Authorities to disclose IPR of all its Group’A’ Officers in public domain by uploading IPR on website.
All organisations/departments uploaded IPR submitted by all Group A officers on their website as it is in the format prescribed under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. These IPR of all Central Government departments are as available on Internet.
DRDO is more clever than DOPT and other organisatins/departments thereby DRDO compiled the partial information in tabular form of All Group ‘A’ Officers working under DRDO.
These IPR was first time uploaded on DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return on home page of DRDO website in year 2011. Therefore DRDO accepted that information related to IPR is public information not the personal information. Despite disclosure of partial information related IPR on DRDO website , PIO, DMSRDE denied the information on the basis of personal information under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. This act of PIO is malafide with ulterior motives to protect the corrupt officers of his own cast based on basis of casteism.
PIO denied the information on illegal grounds to protect Dr. AK Saxena, Director, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar who are having disproportionate assets and are involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 03 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 13 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/50/Letter_2013 dated 09 September2013. It is false to say that RTI was received after 10 days of dispatch. At the time when RTI dated 03 August 2013 was filed to DMSRDE, then on IPR of DMSRDE loaded on DRDO website was not having any property details of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Mr. Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ but after receiving RTI on 13th August, Public Authority (Director, DMSRDE) awaken and left his all the horses to manipulate the IPR data of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar and manage to put in record of DMSRDE by tempering and creating new data. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar on DRDO website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf.
This can be verified from DRDO website under the link of DMSRDE that two pdf files are existing with the names IPR_DMSRDE.pdf (uploaded in year 2011) and Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf(Uploaded on 16 August 2013). In earlier file there was no information about IPR of Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, but as soon as RTI was filed on 03 Aug 2013 and received by PIO on 13 Aug 2013, whole manipulation took place with in three days only and data was published by creating new file. This indicates how DRDO/DMSRDE is protecting its corrupt officials.
viii. Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.
11. Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant, Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar are having disproportionate assets. The money, by which they purchase the disproportionate assets, came to them by means of corruption. The exact details will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Amit Kumar purchased the property in undervalued rates by making cost of property very lower than original cost on which other property were sale in that area on that particular month. There by it create loss to Government in terms of low registry fee and stamps duty used for registry of the property.
These officers did not declare their assets as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby they violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. They are liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar is involved in corruption in DMSRDE and earned black money which they invested in purchase of Immovable Property and Movable Property. Activity pertains to corruption by these officers created pecuniary loss of public money and interest of Government as their integrity is doubtful in light of disproportionate assets with them.
As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
These officials are involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority“. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.
12. To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
13. Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not under gone any training programme on RTI, sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding “Immovable Property Return (IPR) of officers” has to be provided to Parliament and can not be denied by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 03 August 2013 of appellant, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
14. Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. Amit Kumar all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have also been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 09 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 03 August 2013.
(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
RTI Reply by DMSRDE
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,Scientist ‘F’
CPIO, DMSRDE,
GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION
This is with reference to Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964 and information about Immovable Property Return (IPR) available on DRDO website (drdo.gov.in) and DOPT Notification for publishing IPR of each officer working in Establishment on organization website.Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
Information/Question
. S No.
Information Sought
Required Reply
1.
Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Full details about location viz. Municipal No. Street/Village, Taluk, District and State in which situated.
Purchase value of property
Sources from which financed
Pl. provide details.
2.
Provide copies of the form submitted for giving prior intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(2) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all immovable properties acquired till 31 July , 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
3.
Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July,2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’ with following information.
Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account/shares/investments/Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc.
Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts)
Pl. provide details.
4.
Provide copies of the form for giving intimation or seeking previous sanction under rule 18(3) of the CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964 for transaction in respect of all movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
5.
Provide copies of final intimation in form 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rule 1964 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘D’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D’
Pl. provide details.
6
Provide copies of the letters duly noted from DOP, DRDO HQ in respect of all immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
7.
Reasons on the basis of which details of immovable properties acquired by Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D are not reflected in Immovable Property Return (IPR) of DMSRDE, Kanpur on DRDO Website.
Pl. provide details.
8-
Provide copies of Form 16 for the Financial Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amt Kumar, Scientist ‘D.Provide copies of salary slips for month June, 2013 & July, 2013 in respect of Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Scientist ‘F’ and Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D.
Pl. provide details.
9-
Copy of loan papers issued by private agency like Bank, LIC HFL etc on the basis of which rebate on HBA interest was claimed/allowed to Shri Amit Kumar, Scientist ‘D’.
Pl. provide details.
.
This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisionsconsistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.Examples of decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.
The information sought in this RTI Application is on Establishment Matter and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed
Registration Number: DOP&T/R/2013/64325 – Date of Filing: 25/09/2013
To Date 25th September 2013 Shri R K GIRDHARUnder Secretary RTI Section, Room No 215 A /IINorth Block, New Delhi -110011
Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
Please provide information in respect of my applications dated 2nd August 2013 address to you, Subject- Fooling the RTI applicant by DRDO with help of DoPT.
1. Date of receiving of my application 2. Certified copy of noting on my application 3. Copy of letters if any forwarded to concern officials 4. Copy of replies received by you from concern officials 5. Present status of my application
To 2nd August 2013
Shri R K GIRDHAR
Under Secretary
RTI Section, Room No 215 A /II
North Block, New Delhi Subject: Fooling the RTI applicant by DRDO with help of DoPT
Sir,
I have send a RTI request CPIO,Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV) R.No.202, North Block, D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi on 23rd July 2013. (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.) I have received a letter from Sh B Bandyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO, vide letter No 28034/265/2013-Estt.(A) dated 29th July 2013 stated that my application forwarded to CPIO,DRDO Hqrs for providing information directly to me. Copy enclosed) Subsequently vide letter no RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0210 DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ refused to disclose this information u/s 24 (1) of the RTI Act. In view of above I would like to inform you some facts for your kind perusal. In 11th July 2011 I had requested similar RTI request to DoPT and received proper information from Sh Mohd. Moniruazzaman, CPIO vide letter F.No 29/41/2011/EO(SM-II) date 2nd August 2011. ( Copy enclosed)
2. The DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ is facing CVC probe vide CVCNo.569/11/9. Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ major concern to protect corrupt officials by not providing information to RTI applicants who want expose DRDO officials corrupt practices in procurement/ recruitments/ promotions / extensions etc.The current status of Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’ case is the case file No 203/D/(Vig.II)/2011 was referred to CVC on 17th July 2013 from CVO, Ministry of Defence for further action.
3. In my RTI request is directly related to corruption in Sh R C Agarwal’s extension case, the guidelines FR 56 d was not followed properly. Sh R C Agarwal have no international or national reputation credits, his second extension backed by DRDO for Software Defined Radio Project (100 Cores), without any output PDC Date 27th July 2013, there is no further extension received by DEAL, DRDO till date. As per sources 18 members team of Project Management Review Committee found that project is not feasibly fit for further extension on 14th August 2013 but the DRDO will manage to get extension for another 12 months for wasting rest Rs 40 corers precious poor tax payers’ money.
4. It is requested to do needful action to replace Dr A K Tyagi from the duty of CPIO as he is facing CVC enquiry against him. It is requested to kindly directed Sh B Bandyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO to provide the requested information as earlier followed by DoPT.
Copy of RTI request sent to CPIO,Under Secretary (Estt.A-IV) R.No.202, North Block, D/o.Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi on 23rd July 2013.
Copy of letter of Sh B Banddyopadhyay, Under Secretary, & CPIO, vide letter No 28034/265/2013-Estt.(A) dated 29th July 2013.
Copy of denial letter no RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0210 dated 16th August 2013 from DRDO Hqrs CPIO, Dr.A.K.Tyagi, Sc’F’
Copy of Sh Mohd. Moniruazzaman, CPIO vide letter F.No 29/41/2011/EO(SM-II) date 2nd August 2011
Copy to
Prime Minister of India, PMO, South Block, New Delhi
2. Defence Minister of India, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi.
Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Secretary, MOP, Room No-112, North Block, New Delhi
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECS
First Appellate Authority , DRDO
RTI Cell , Room No. 240/B ,DRDO Bhawan,
Rajaji Marg, New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/47/Letter_2013 dated 02 September 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
Details of appellant:-
Name
Rajiv Chauhan
Address
1053/3, Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.)- 250005
Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE
GT Road
Kanpur-208013
Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/47/Letter_2013 dated 02 September 2013 received by appellant on 10 September 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 31 July 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax and rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE“. Copy of the RTI application dated 31 July 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/47/Letter_2013 dated 02 September 2013 although it was clearly mentioned in RTI application that required information is directly related to the allegations of corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 31 July 2013 That “Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010“.
(d) In point (3) of reply dated 2 September 2013 , PIO referred the DOPT OM 11/2/2013-IR(Pt.) dated 14 August 2013 in which PIO mentioned some decision of CIC for seeking exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. The said OM is having three Para’s but PIO did not read Para (2) and malafidely ignored Para (2) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment was quoted.
(e) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 31 July 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(f) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 31 July 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 31 July 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 31 July 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO as information sought is related to Establishment Matter and allegations of Corruption.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with malafide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) PIO is unable to understand the RTI Act 2005 and have not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of Act, definition of personal information, definition of public interest and various CIC decision in this matter. Misinterpretation of law leads to malafide intention and promotion to corruption by PIO. PIO is working under control and direction of Director (Public Authority).
(h) It appears that PIO does know the meaning of Establishment Matter, thereby he is claiming the information sought as personal information.
(i) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 31 July 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 31 July 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions as PIO is for helping the appellant(information seeker) not for harassing the appellant as per sprit and provisions of RTI Act 2005.
Direction may please be issued to PIO to go through provisions of RTI Act 2005 before denial of information.
Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
CIC decisions on notified organizations under Schedule II of
RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) Information sought in RTI Application dated 31 July 2013 was pertaining to Establishment Matter
(v) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(vi) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
Nature of information sought is not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Information sought is related to ” List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax an rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE“. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 31 July 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption.It is alleged that along with Mr.AK, Scientist ‘D’ and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ , several officers and employees of DMSRDE are claiming Income Tax rebate on HRA and rent paid by submitting fake and forge rent receipt prepared by themselves while they are living on different address. Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is promoting this immoral act which is punishable under IPC and CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 , based on casteism as Mr.AK, Dr. Vineeta Nigam , Dr. Anurag Srivastava and Dr. AK Saxena belongs to same cast Kayastha.
Information sought is related to “List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax an rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE“. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters.
The information related to rent receipt submitted for the purpose of seeking income tax rebateandForm 16 giving details of salary and house rent paid and rebate in income tax is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j) as this information has been allowed by Hon’ble CIC in decision No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001464 dated 24 November 2010 by Information Commissioner Mrs. Annapurna Dixit.
Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 02 September 2013, PIO DMSRDE quoted in Para(3) – DOPT OM No. 11/2/2013-IR dated 14 August 2013.
The said OM is having three(03) Para with one enclosure (CIC Decision in F No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 Manoj Arya Vs. Cabinet Secretariat).
In Para (1) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, it has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission in one of its decisions (copy enclosed) has held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005′.
In Para(2) of DOPT OM quoted by PIO, It has been mentioned ‘The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) no. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under:- “The performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.”The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest.
The information sought in RTI Application dated 31 July 2013 is neither related to any complaint made against any Government servant nor related to the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation, as demanded in DOPT OM dated 14 August 2013.
Thereby PIO is seeking illegal and malafide shelter of the said OM of DOPT because information sought is not personal information, rather this type of information has already been allowed in CIC decision F No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001464 dated 24 November 2010.
Hence the information sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
Information sought is related to larger public interest and public activity
As per the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
As per the evidences available with appellant , about 500 officials are working in DMSRDE, out of which at least 10% officials are claiming income tax rebate on HRA by submitting fake & forge rent receipt. Fraudulently preparing forge & fake rent receipt is violation of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964 and is a crime under IT Act & IPC.
AK, Scientist ‘D’ and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ are submitting forge & fake rent receipt of Rs. 10500/- pm and Rs. 12000/- pm. However both are not living on the address which has been mentioned in the rent receipt submitted by them. In FY 2012-2013 (AY 2013-2014) Mr.AK claimed rebate of approx 70000/- on HRA and thus he is involved in income tax evasion of Rs. 21000/-. Mr.AK, Scientist ‘D’ prepared forge rent receipt by himself and submitted to DMSRDE for claiming IT rebate on HRA on the basis of forge rent receipt. Hence Mr.AK prepared forge documents and submitted to DMSRDE During FY 2012-2013. Mr.AK was not living on the address which was mentioned in the rent receipt. Similar is the case with Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’, she is involved in income tax evasion of approx. Rs. 40000/- per year.
In totality a racket is active in DMSRDE for Income Tax evasion by submitting forge rent receipt under protection and guidance of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE. Mr.AK, Scientist ‘D’ , Dr. Vineeta Nigam , Scientist ‘D’ and other henchman of Dr. Saxena are claiming IT rebate on HRA on the basis of fake rent receipt. The total amount of income tax evasion by these officials is approx. Rs. 10,00000/- (Rupees Ten lakh).
Therefore loss of more than Rs. 10,00000/- in terms of income tax (Public Money) has been evaded by these officials from Govt. of India. Therefore the information sought is having larger public interest, as the disclosure of information will expose the fraudulent and dishonest officials at DMSRDE. Disclosure of information will help in getting Rs. 1000000/- in account of Govt. of India in form of income tax.
As public money, public servants, integrity of public servants, integrity of Public Authority and Public offices are involved in the matter, therefore larger public interest is involved and public activity is involved in the disclosure of information.
These officials involved in fraudulent claim of rebate on income tax, thereby their integrity is doubtful and these are not suitable for Government Service. They should be terminated by DGR&D, DRDO for submitting forge & fake rent receipt to DMSRDE. The existence of such kind of officials having fraudulent nature & activity, is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO. This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
viii. As a principle , public interest includes “Disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability in working of a public authority”. Thereby public interest is involved in seeking information as it will brought transparency in DMSRDE and contain the corruption as per preamble of RTI Act 2005.
To provide reasons when information denied u/s 8(1)(j)
PIO, DMSRDE is not aware of CIC decision in case No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 07.07.2006 . Decision pronounced is “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act“.
PIO has not given any reasons as to how he arrived to the conclusion that information sought is personal information u/s 8(1)(j). PIO also not mentioned the grounds on which he rejected the RTI application under section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Thereby he violated the CIC decisions and provisions of RTI Act. To use the shadow of section 8(1)(j) by PIO for rejection of RTI application is illegal , prejudice and malafide.
Provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
PIO is reluctant to perform his duties as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It appears that he has not gone under any training programme on RTI sponsored by DOPT. Even though he is not taking pain for mere reading of RTI Act. PIO, DMSRDE either has not gone through the provisions of section 8(1)(j) or he is unable to understand the meaning of provisions of section 8(1)(j).
Appellant would like to draw kind attention of FAA, DRDO on the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 “Provided that the information which can not be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person“.
The information sought by appellant regarding ” List of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income tax an rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE” has to be provided to Parliament by DMSRDE/DRDO in case Parliament seek such information as sought in RTI Application dated 31 July 2013, thereby the information sought should be provided to appellant under the said provisions of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is not personal information.
Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Mr.AK and some other official of DMSRDE are working as a gang based on casteism in DMSRDE. Integrity of these officers is doubtful and it can be established if proper enquiry will be conducted at DMSRDE by CVC/CBI. Promotion to casteism is violation of Constitution of India and CCS (conducts) Rules.
A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Mr.AK all are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
A.K. Saxena and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar are protecting the corrupt officials belonging to his cast on the basis of false ground and malafidely misusing the provisions of RTI Act. Some other official also belonging to cast Kayastha have been protected by them by illegal denial of information.
Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Rajiv Chauhan
1053/3,Shastri Nagar
Meerut(U.P.) – 250005
Appeal No.:FA/RC/DMSRDE/2013/01
Date: 25 September, 2013
Enclosure: two
(1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 02 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 31 July 2013.
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’
CPIO
DMSRDE, GT Road , Kanpur-208013
Sub:Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Provide list of Scientists/Officers claiming rebate in Income Tax on rent paid by submitting rent receipt to DMSRDE, Kanpur in the following format for-
(i) FY 2010-2011 (ii) FY 2011-2012 (ii) FY 2012-2013
S.N.
Name of Scientist & Rank
Financial Year
Rent claimed per month as per rent receipt
Total rebate on rent paid in Income Tax
Provide the addresses for which the Scientists/Officers submitted rent receipt in following format
S.N.
Name of Scientist & Rank
Financial Year
Address in rent receipt
Rent claimed per month
Provide the copies of Form 16 issued by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur for AY 2012-2013 and AY 2013-2014 in respect of ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’.
Provide copies of verified rent receipt submitted by ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’ to get income tax rebate on house rent paid for the AY years 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 ( Financial Year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013).
Provide the copy of the undertaking given by ShriAK , Scientist ‘D’ to Director, DMSDRE in respect to that ‘He will liable to pay Income Tax and Penalty on Income Tax in case it was found that his claim for both HBA interest and rent paid was found illegal’.
Provide Copy of Income Tax Rules on ground of which ShriAK was allowed to get rebates in income tax both on rent paid and on HBA interest by Director, DMSRDE , Kanpur.
Copy of Declaration in Form No. 10BA under Rule 11 (B) of IT Act by ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’ during FY 2011-12, 2012-2013.
Provide copy of salary slips for the months June 2013 and July 2013.
Provide Owner name and address of house for which the rent receipts were submitted by ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’.
Provide Copy of the Performa submitted by ShriAK to finance division for claiming rebates and informing saving details duly verified by Administration Division after confirming the present address from his personal case.
The date on which ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’ left the Government Accommodation . Provide copy of vacation report/certificate issued by MES to Estate Division in respect of ShriAK, Scientist ‘D’.
The date from which ShriAK is submitting rent receipt in order to claim/get rebate in rent paid in Income Tax.
Whether any Vigilance Committee/other Committee was constituted by Director, DMSRDE to verify that the concerned Scientist/Officer claiming rebate on basis of rent paid is living on the address claimed and not submitting fake/forge receipt for house rent? (Yes/No)
If Yes then provide the copy of the letter by which the said Vigilance Committee/Other Committee for this purpose was constituted.
This is to inform that Central Information Commission in its various decisions consistently held that establishment matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure. For examples decision pronounced in F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and in F. No.CIC/SM/C/2008/ 00054/LS dated 29.01.2010.
Besides this the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of RTI Act 2005. An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee is enclosed.
A Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) scientist was on Sunday booked for allegedly raping his wife.
“A case has been lodged case against Tapas Kumar Majumdar, who is working with food research laboratory wing of DRDO, on the complaint lodged by his 30-year-old wife this evening,” Raipur Superintendent of Police O P Pal told reporters.
According to the woman, who is a school teacher in Raipur, the accused had married her in 2011, while keeping her in dark about the status of his earlier marriage.
He had told her that he had taken divorce from the first wife and then got married with the complainant, who later came to know that Majumdar had not taken divorce, the SP said.
“A case has been registered against Majumdar under sections 376 (rape), 419 (cheating by personation), 496 (marrying fraudulently) and 498 (A) (subjecting wife to cruelty),” the SP said.
Majumdar is currently posted at Mussorie in Uttarakhand.
Further probe is on and suitable action will be taken in this connection, the SP added.
ToSh Avinash ChandraSA to RM, Secretary DRDO, DG DRDODRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi – 110105
Congrats Sh.AvinashChander for AGNI-5
Heartiest congratulations to Sh.Avinash Chandra and all AGNI team members for the great success of AGNI-5 trials. It will boost the moral and reason to stay in DRDO to new upcoming young DRDO scientists.
Sh.Avinash Chandra is also keeping his promise to implement the Rama Rao Committee’s recommendations.
But major challenges are still waiting for your attentions like corruption and nepotism. Both are big issues that require careful handling and also strongly like Honorable R.M. Sh. A K Antony gave example not to gave extension (License of Corruption) to Dr V K Saraswat.
The recent extensions to some senior incompetent scientists are example that Sh.Avinash Chandra is still in the grip of corrupt DRDO officials.
In Dr.Arun Kumar’s case Sh.Avinash Chandra was member of inquiry committee and gave clean chit to Dr.Arun Kumar and later on Sh. A K Antony corrected and suspended the culprit.
Sh.Avinash Chandra’s weaknesses are with corrupt DRDO officials gangs who are enriched and patronized by Dr. V K Sarswat and Dr. W Selvamurthy (PhD in Yoga).
Sh.Avinash Chandra ji leave your weakness, without fear declare the results of Scientist ‘H’, since you have taken responsibility to develop defence self reliance of our great nation. Leave the small weaknesses and weed out the corrupt gang of DRDO. A lot of honest and capable persons are available in DRDO.
Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi’s case is also an example, why Dr. A K Singh helped him to get result via DoPT advice, have they shown you that this kind of practice done by DRDO before; you just allow them blindly to follow this route. You have been receiving hundreds of cases where humentrain / medical/ grievances request for transfer and other kind of help by DRDO scientist and staff. Can you tell me a single example of where these stalwarts took fast action? I can send you a lot of examples where your HR/DOP dealings have been insensitive and the person has no choice but to bear it or leave the organization.
You can find their expertise and efficiency in protection of corrupt and incompetent DRDO officials like example case of Sh. R K Agarwal, who got promotion of scientist ‘H’ with false work claims and proudly publishes in DRDO news letter also, because he knows he managed his boss.
Sir, it is requested that you do the needful to save DRDO from the claws of these corrupt DRDO officials.
Please see the following:
Status of Complaint No: 569/11/9 against your one great scientist Dr Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sc ‘G’ CPIO, DRDO Hqrs
Date: 17/9/2013
Sent to CVO for Investigation/Action Taken Report on date : 16/3/2011
CVO Report Received on date: 18/7/2013
Prima facie material has been found against the officials involved. Regular Disciplinary action is recommended on: 9/9/2013
Sir, now how can you give such important responsibility of CPIO, DRDO Hqrs to such individual?
Waiting for your quick response
Regards
Prabhu Dandriyal21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008Landline -0135-2787750, Mobile – 9411114879Email –prabhudoon@gmail.com Website – www.corruptionindrdo.comDate -20th September 2013
Copy to
Defence Minister, Room No 104, South Block, New Delhi – 110011
Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar, Secretary, MOP, Room No-112, North Block, New Delhi
50 verification certificates were issued by the official in the past six months, raising fears that documents were forged
The Regional Passport Office here has ordered a probe into the issuance of 50 verification certificates in the past six months by an official of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). These certificates had been issued for obtaining passports under the Tatkal scheme.
Regional Passport Officer K. Srikar Reddy told reporters on Thursday that a complaint would be lodged with the police to find out how so many certificates were issued by a single officer, apart from verifying the authenticity of the documents. Details were also sought from the DRDO in this regard, he said.
Last year, the RPO had detected 50 forged verification documents issued in the name of IAS and IPS officers. Begumpet police have already registered a case in the matter.
Recently, an applicant had submitted a forged document, which was attested from a local court.
“After receiving the document, we enquired with the court, which denied any such attestation,” he said.
“We are dealing with these cases very seriously and necessary action would be taken against those involved in it after investigation,” Mr. Reddy said.
The passport office has also set up a centralised control room at the Secunderabad office to oversee the functioning of Passport Seva Kendras (PSKs) in the State with the help of surveillance cameras.
“We can monitor live the flow of applicants and submission process and if needed depute additional staff. We can also directly speak to the applicants’ online and collect feedback from them,” he explained. Using CCTVs, a police constable was caught red-handed for accepting a bribe at the Secunderabad RPO recently. He was later suspended.
Online payment of processing fee at will be facilitated from PSKs at Begumpet, Ameerpet, Tolichowki, Nizamabad, Vijayawada and Tirupati from Friday.
The processing fee can be paid while booking an appointment on the website www.passportindia.gov.in either by debit/credit card or via SBI internet banking. Those intending to pay the amount through challan, can check the details on the passport website.
DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO.
NO Assessment interview requirement for Promotion from scientist ‘F’ to Senior scientist ‘G’ as per the DRDO service rule-1979-Rule-8(2)(e) ; but Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment of DRDO forward name before promotion committee after “ INTERACTION ’’ .
What is the meaning of interaction and what is its need against the rule? Nothing except the violation of law for corruption. UPSC conducted examinations for thousands participant for few seats then how RAC chairman want to stop the limited scientists opportunities to appear before the committee directly. Intention of Chairman is very clear.
Then Chairman, RAC Dr. P. S. Goel’s letter RAC/01/Assessment/PSG, dated 22-3-11 introduced this mechanism to give favor to incompetent few DRDO scientists and for this act in return he got Prof. MGK Menon’s chair, RCI, Hyderabad which fed him 84 lakhs per year. It is pure kick back or DRDO should prove the justification of his appointment.
What is this, is it not corruption? Best part of this type of corruption is money which he is receiving is poor tax payer’s money.
Question is, if he was competent authority to amendment of this kind of mechanism than why later DRDO amended this through Government of India gazette notification. He doesn’t have knowledge of the constitution of India, he is not competent authority to amend the DRDS rules which are framed under Article 309 of the constitution of India.
Where is law, where is administration, where is governance, it is happening in every stage in DRTC promotions also, where incompetent fake certificates holders are getting promotions and all relevant benefits, in recruitment of scientists lot of cases are exposed like Arun Kumar’s daughter, Selvamurty’s daughter, A K Bansal’ daughter and now several in queue like Narendra Kumar’s daughter, R B Singh’s son appointment are under lenses
Recently in CEPTAM recruitment drive nearly 5 lakhs applications was received by CEPTAM, they made almost Rs 15 lakhs or more by introducing mandatory SMS registration, pure corruption by CEPTAM management god only knows who is patronizing this kind of corruption in DRDO. The 1 lakh applicant were rejected, and thousands were not appeared due to examination center, CEPTAM did great job candidate who want center in nearby DELHI put him to Goa, Mizoram, Ajmer, Kolkata, Chennai etc.
RTI Request to DRDO
To 9th September 2013
CPIO, DRDO HQ
Room No. 314A
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi – 110105
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the following
The amount of expenditure incurred on Internal Screening Committee ( Main ) held for promotion from the grade of Scientist `F` to the grade of Scientist`G`, under the following Heads separatelyfor the Year 2011,2012 and 2013
a) TA/DA on the Chairman and Members of the Internal Screening Committee (Main).
b) TA on the candidates ( Scientist `F`) who have appeared before the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )
c) Miscellaneous Expenditure, i.e. other than above (a) and(b), on the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )
Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.
Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II
The requested information is pertain to routine establishment / administrative matter which is not covered under exemption as decided by CIC (refer to CIC decision no CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22/03/2013).
There was no government approval for conducting ISC, main in assessment year 2011, and it was conducted illegally against the DRDS rules for the benefit to few incompetent scientists of their choice.
“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,
Shri Surjan Pal, OS & Director DECS, First Appellate Authority, DRDO
RTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi-110011
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 issued by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Public Information Officer, DMSRDE , Kanpur. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal
Address
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun-248008
Mobile
09411114879
email ID
prabhudoon@gmail.com
2. Details of Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Name & Rank
Shri Sarvesh Kumar , Scientist ‘F ‘
Address
DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of PIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 8 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding Tour Programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena and Dr. Vineeta Nigam. Copy of the RTI application dated 8 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/45/Letter_2013 dated 26 August 2013 although it was clearly mentioned as Note in RTI application that required information is directly related to the corruption and not come under Schedule-II.
(c) PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 8 August 2013 on invalid, illegal, ultra vires & false reasons with malafide intentions to linger on the process of seeking information with an ulterior motiveunder direction of Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur (The Public Authority). This act of PIO, DMSRDE , Kanpur attracts action on PIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(d) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
5. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) Under the provisions of section 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 the organisation notified under II Schedule of the Act are exempted from the information except when the information pertained allegations of corruption and human rights violations only.
(b) Appellant submitted an application dated 8 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 8 August 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur on the ground that “DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of Information under Section 24(1) except for information pertaining to the allegations of Corruptions and Human Rights Violations“.
(d) The information sought by the appellant vide his application dated 8 August 2013 does not comes u/s 24(1) of the Act as per consistent views and decisions of Central Information Commission in various cases regarding organisation notified in Schedule II like DRDO.
(e) Information was denied on false and illegal grounds with mala fide intentions to harass the appellant from getting the information.
(f) PIO is not aware of recent views and decisions of CIC regarding DRDO(notified organisation under Schedule II), thereby he misused section 24(1) of the Act for denial of Information.
(g) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid decision of PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur, hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before FAA.
6. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vide RTI Application dated 8 August 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.
7. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:- 1. CIC decisions on notified organisations under Schedule II of RTI Act 2005 like DRDO
(i) CIC in its various decisions consistently held that Establishment Matters relating to the organization notified u/s 24 of the RTI Act come within the purview of the Act and information in this regard thereto are not exempted from disclosure.
(ii) CIC in its various decisions clarified that the exemption u/s 24(1) for DRDO (notified organisation under Schedule II) is only for Scientific/Technical/Strategic/national security information and not for the information of General nature/Estt. Matters/ Routine Correspondence/ all other information for which exemptions u/s 24(1) are not allowed.
(iii) These decisions of CIC are binding on all notified organisation under Schedule II, as these decisions of CIC has not been challenged till date in any court.
(iv) In this regard following decisions of CIC are listed for your kind information and consideration.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22.03.2013 (Dr. Neelam Bhalla Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17.2.2010 (Navin Praksh Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002487 dated 31.12.2012 ( Ms. Savitha Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 (Ms. K. Surya Kumari Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2008/00054/LS dated 29.01.2010 (Shri Prabhat Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2010/001277 dated 2.3.2010 (Ram Manohar Singh Vs. DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2012/002599 & CIC/LS/A/2012/002146 dated 01.11.2012 (Virender Kumar Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/C/2012/001204 dated 9.8.2012 (Rajiv Chauhan Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/A/2009/001014/LS dated 09.11.2009 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/LS/A/2009/001073 dated 17 Feb 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
CIC/SM/C/2009/00794, CIC/LS/A/2010/00015, CIC/LS/C/2010/000076 dated 18 June 2010 (Navin Prakash Gupta Vs DRDO)
(v) In these decisions CIC decided that “Immunity granted u/s 24(1) is only for scientific & strategic Information only. All other information should be provided by all organisation notified under second schedule of the Act“.
2. Nature of information sought is not related to strategic/national security/scientific /technical matters
Information sought is related to official tour programmes and TA/DA Bills of Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’, DMSRDE, Kanpur. This type of information has already been allowed by CIC as information sought is not pertaining to strategic/national security/scientific/technical matters.
3. Information sought is related to Estt. Matter/General Routine nature/ Routine correspondence and permissible / allowed by CIC, even after the fact “DRDO is notified organisation under Schedule II”, in various decisions against DRDO.
4. Information sought is also related to allegations of corruption as already mentioned in RTI application dated 8 August 2013 and having angle of vigilance as per CVC Act. Under the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, the information should be pertaining to allegations of corruption only. No evidences or proofs of corruption are required for seeking information related to corruption as per RTI Act 2005. Instead the onus is on PIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his official position for sanctioning of tour programs and tour expenses of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’.
5. Information sought is related to tour programme and tour details of Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE and Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’. This information is not a personal information u/s 8(1) (j) of RTI Act and comes under Establishment Matters. The information related to tour programme & TA/DA etc are allowed under RTI Act as pronounced in various decisions of CIC. For ready reference of FAA, appellant would like to mention some decisions of CIC regarding tour programme, travel expenses etc of a public servant.
Case No. 07/IC (A)/CIC/2006 dated 6.3.2006, Dinesh Berry Vs BPCL. Decision pronounced as “The information sought by the appellant relate to the tour programme and travel expenses of a public servant, which can not be treated as personal information“
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000952 dated 13 April 2010, Shri Janardhana Rao Vs UCO Bank. Decision pronounced as “Copy of the tour programme and copy of TA bills are not personal information“.
Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000996/SS dated 13.3.2012, U.P. Kamal Vs Coal Mine PF. Decision pronounced as “Official tours undertaken under the budgetary resources of the public authority can not be considered personal information“
In CIC decision in case No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000386 dated 29 June 2011, Prabhu Dayal Dandriyal Vs DRDO, CIC has allowed the tour related information. Therefore denial of information under shadow of section 24(1) is illegal.
Despite being a notified organisation, DRDO is following section 4 of RTI Act and proactively disclosed IPR, various service rules, procurement & recruitment rules etc on DRDO website. As per DOPT Notification F.No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11 Sept 2012 and 3rd April 2013 official tours of Ministers & Officials should be disclosed proactively on website by all organisations. Tour Programme & tour expenses related information is not exempted for organisation notified under Schedule II as per CIC decisions as this is information related to Estt. Matter and general nature. Despite the information sought comes under section 4 of RTI Act, PIO denied information with ulterior motive & malafide.
8. Declaration:- I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Enclosure: two (1) Letter from PIO, DMSRDE dated 26 Aug 2013(2) RTI Application dated 8 August 2013.To Date:08thAugust, 2013Shri Sarvesh Kumar, Scientist ‘F’CPIO,DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-208013
Sir,
This is with reference to DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11thSeptember 2012 and DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April, 2013 on Subject “Suo motu disclosure on official tours of Ministers and other officials“. It has been observed that information regarding official tours of Director, DMSRDE and other Scientist ‘G’ & above posted in DMSRDE are not available on DRDO/ DMSRDE website in compliance of above mentioned DOPT Office Memorandum.
Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Provide soft copy of data / data in electronic form stored in database kept on server/computer used for storing data of tour programs using software for preparing TA/DA advance bills, final claim settlement of tours and Movement Orders in Finance & Accounts Division DMSRDE for tour program/Temporary Duty move data from 01st January, 2011 to 31st July 2013 in respect of all Scientists and officials of DMSRDE in Compact Disc (CD).
Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur from 01 January 2011 to 31 July 2013.
III. Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging And Boarding, taxi bills etc.
Provide following information and records regarding official tours of Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013
III. Copies of all Movement Orders
IV. Copies of final claim along with all enclosure for claiming TA/DA like rail/air tickets, bills for Lodging and Boarding, taxi bills etc.
Provide temporary duty completion report submitted by Dr. Vineeta Nigam, Scientist ‘D’ duly verified from the concerned official at place of temporary duty.
Amount that has been paid to Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE for TA and DA separately for his all official tours/temporary duty moves from 01.01.2011 to 31.07.2013.
Reasons for not uploading official tour data of Director , DMSRDE, Kanpur and all Scientist ‘G’ & above on website of DRDO/DMSRDE as per orders of Government of India vide OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 11th September 2012 and OM F. No. 1/8/2012-IR dated 3rd April, 2013.
Copies of all official tour programs
Copies of movement orders for all tours
Copies of all Minute Sheets/Justifications approved by Director for Temporary Duty /Official Tour.
Copies of all official tour programs
An IPO of Rs. 10/- as application fee (IPO No. 16 F 964388) is enclosed
