To, 5th February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27th December 2013 regarding on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI. As per website of ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI the B.Tech is not in the list Programmes Offered in Distance Mode.
Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3
“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”
Sh R Anandh, STA ‘B’ CVRDE acquired B.Tech (E &C Engineering) in 1 December 2010 from ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI
Sh S Purshotham, STA ‘B’ CVRDE acquired B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) in 1 December 2010 from ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI
In respect of above please provide following information.
The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
Certified copy of recommendation for lump sum grant of incentive received by competent authority from their respective establishments.
Copy of DRDO’s procedure followed for verification of Degree’s/Diploma/M.Sc/ Ph D
Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)
To, 4th February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27th December 2013 regarding on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK. As per website of MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK the M Sc (Computer Science) is not in the list Programmes Offered in Distance Mode.
Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3
“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”
Sh U Maheshwarn, STA ‘C’ DIPR acquired M Sc, (Computer Science) in 3 September 2009 from MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK
Sh Deepak Kumar, STA ‘B’ DESIDOC acquired M Sc, (Computer Science) in 31 March 2010 from MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK
Smt Laxmi Verma, STA ‘C’ DESIDOC acquired M Sc, (Computer Science) in 20 September 2011 from MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK
Sh Puneet Kumar, STA ‘C’ DESIDOC acquired M Sc, (Computer Science) in 30 September 2011 from MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK
Sh Mandeep Singh Basra, STA ‘B’ IRDE acquired M Sc, (Computer Science) in 30 September 2012 from MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK
In respect of above please provide following information.
The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
Certified copy of recommendation for lump sum grant of incentive received by competent authority from their respective establishments.
Copy of DRDO’s procedure followed for verification of Degree’s/Diploma/M.Sc/ Ph D
Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)
To, 3rd February 2014Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,New Delhi-110011
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27th December 2013 regarding on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from Jawharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. The website of Jawharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad stated in their website that “ the school was offering B.Tech correspondence – cum – contact programme (CCC) from 1983 to 2009. Keeping in view of the ACITE guidelines for B.Tech (CCC) has been suspended since 2010.”
Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3
“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”
Sh. Siyaram, STA ‘B’ RCI acquired B Tech Mech Engg in 1 June 2010 from JNTU, Hyderabad
Shri A Venkateshwara Rao, STA ‘B’ DRDL, acquired B Tech Mech Engg in 1 August 2010 from JNTU, Hyderabad
Sh. G Venkatesh STA ‘, DMRL acquired B Tech Civil Engg in 7 March 2012 from JNTU, Hyderabad
Sh. B Baludu, TO’A’ RCI, acquired B Tech Mech. Engg in 7 March 2012 from JNTU, Hyderabad
In respect of above please provide following information.
The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
Certified copy of recommendation for lump sum grant of incentive received by competent authority from their respective establishments.
Copy of DRDO’s procedure followed for verification of Degree’s/Diploma/M.Sc/ Ph D
Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14 Nov 2013 issued by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Central 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, Uttarakhand
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th Nov 2013 received by appellant on 24 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Facts & Grounds leading to appeal:
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 23rd October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Private cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 using DMSRDE for commercial purpose”. Copy of the RTI Application dated 23rd October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/R/2013/0029 dated 14th November 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. However CPIO replied in the highly irresponsible manner which indicates the mismanagement and Corruption in DMSRDE.
(c) It was clearly mentioned in RTI application dated 23rd October 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 d (1) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO provided false argument. As per Purchase Management 2006 it is the responsibility of Director, DMSRDE to hire the transport services from that vendor, the vehicles of which are registered under Taxi at RTO. How can RTO know that a private car vehicle is being used for transport services at DMSRDE?
(e) In point d (2) of reply dated 14 Nov 2013, CPIO gave false argument for not providing the information sought. Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. Ashok Ranjan, Scientist ‘F’ and four other members for identification of vendors did not perform their responsibilities properly. As per findings of the Committee 15 vendors were identified for hired transport services and out of which 10 vendors were qualified as per guidelines framed by the Committee. General terms and conditions were also framed on 18 points by Committee as Annexure II of proposal provided to vendors for seeking quotations for hired transport services. In point no. 8 of General terms & conditions framed by the Committee it was clearly mentioned that “The lowest quotation will be accepted. In case of more than one lowest quotation, the firm whose cars/vehicles registered at RTO for taxi will be preferred”. This indicates that it was responsibilities of DMSRDE to check the registration of taxies whether these were registered as taxies at RTO.
(f) The arguments at point d (3) is again to put the responsibilities and accountability to minimize corruption in hiring of transport services , on the soldiers of local audit and test audit teams. In case both local & test audit teams were obliged by Director, DMSRDE on cash & kind then how can they raise the objections on irregularities and corruptions in contract of hired transport. It is well known fact that hired vehicles are being provided to local audit personnel (ACDA officials) on 24×7 and one DMSRDE official is also posted at ACDA office to assist ACDA. These illegal obligations putted on ACDA by Director, DMSRDE establish Corruption in the whole process of contract of hired transport.
(g) Contract given to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur has been expired in July 2012 as contract was for only for one year and still now new contract has not been provided to any other vendor by the fresh tendering process as per Purchase Management 2006. One & half year extension to the same vendor smacks vested interest and leads Corruption.
(h) The vendor is not claiming service tax from DMSRDE; the vendor is not having service tax registration and not depositing service tax to Custom & Excise Department, Govt. of India. The issue of service tax registration is clearly mentioned in General terms and conditions framed by the committee so constituted by Director, DMSRDE. In point no. 17 of General terms & conditions framed by the committee it was clearly mentioned that “The rates quoted should be excluding the service tax. The service tax will be paid additionally only after receiving the proof of the service tax registration. No service tax will be paid if the operator fails to provide proof of valid service tax registration”.
(i) Facts mentioned at above establish irregularities in giving contracts to M/s Super India Travels, Kanpur and further illegal extension since one and half year indicates Corruption at DMSRDE, Kanpur in the whole process.
5. Prayer /relief sought for:-
Information sought vides RTI Application dated 23 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 23rd October 2013.
6. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(1) Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 14th November 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 23 October 2013
RTI Application dated 23 October 2013
To,
Shri Sarvesh Kumar,
Central Public Information Officer,
DMSRDE, GT Road,
Kanpur-208013
Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005
Hello,
Kindly refer to following decisions of Central Information Commission and verdict given thereof 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 its above mentioned 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.
In light of the above decisions of CIC,Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Total No. of transport/vehicles available in MT Division DMSRDE.
Provide following information in respect of all vehicles available in DMSRDE.
Type of vehicle, Brand name, Manufacturer
Date of Purchase, purchase cost and source of fund(Build up/Project etc)
Present depreciated cost as on 31.10.2013
Average distance run /traveled by each vehicle in the year 2012-2013 separately for
each vehicle.
Total expenditure on maintenance of each vehicle separately in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
3. How many CMTD /MTD are posted in MT Division?
4. Mode of tendering for selection of vendors for hired vehicles (Local Board/Single Tender/Limited Tender/Open Tender/Repeat Order) for the following years.
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
2013-2014
5. Total budget of MT Division years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
6. Total expenditure and payment made for hired vehicles/transport for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13 along with name of vendor to whom the payment made.
7. Provide expenditure incurred on various heads for the years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-13.
8. Provide information about vendor/firm which got contract for hired vehicles and amount paid to these vendors in following format
9. Amount of Service Tax that has been paid by DMSRDE to Vendor as reflected in bills submitted by vendor for depositing in Custom, Excise & Service Tax Department in
following format
Provide copies of CST (Comparative Statement) after opening of quotations duly approved by competent authority for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 for giving contract to vendors for hired vehicles services in DMSRDE.
Provide copy of supply order placed for hiring private vehicles/transport for the FY 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in DMSRDE.
Copy of contract with terms & condition and rate (usage charges) for the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.
Whether any extension of contract for hired vehicle has been given to any vendor for during the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. (Yes/No)
If answer to point (13) is yes then provide copy of rules under PM 2006 by which extension for contract of hired vehicle services (Repeat Order) could be given to vendor without going in fresh bidding.
Details about maintenance of vehicles/transport available in DMSRDE for each vehicle/transport in following format
Status of vehicle (operational/Non operational) available in DMSRDE when services of hired vehicles were utilized.
Whether hired vehicles provided by vendor Super India Travels, Rama Devi, Kanpur with following registration number are registered at RTO, Kanpur under category of Taxi for commercial purposes. Registration & Details of vehicles are
(a) UP78 BS 1144 ( Indica Car White Color with white number plate)
(b) UP78 CP 6510 (Indigo CS White Car with white number plate)
If answer to point (17) is Yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by RTO Kanpur for said vehicles under Taxi for Commercial purpose.
If answer to point (17) is No then provide the grounds on which vendor not having proper registration under Taxi from RTO, Kanpur was allowed to provide services in DMSDRE.
The details of Vendor Registration Committee at DMSRDE with name & designation of Chairman and members.
The color of the number plates used in cars with registration No. UP78 BS 1144 and UP78 CP 6510 provided by vendor for hired services are not Yellow. The color of these no. plates are White. It establishes that cars used for hired transport in DMSRDE are not registered under TAXI FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. Also the said vendor is not registered at Custom & Excise Department under Service Tax category and not depositing any Service Tax for hired vehicles services at DMSRDE.
Therefore the Information Sought is pertaining to Allegations of Corruption and as such not exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005.
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 (IPO No. 17F 549289) is annexed as Annexure-1.
TNN | Dec 2, 2013, 11.46 AM IST
BHOPAL: A senior scientist at the Defence Research & Development Establishment (DRDE), Gwalior has been accused of stalking, blackmailing and forcing his fellow researcher for sexual favours.
According to complaint lodged with the police on Saturday, scientist Prabhat Garg was harassing his fellow researcher for the last three years. She was in DRDE Gwalior in 2010 for research work, said police.
The complainant later got married and settled in Karnataka two years ago. But, Garg allegedly continued stalking her making calls and sending texts on her cellphone. She informed about it to her husband, and subsequently got a complaint lodged at the University road police station. Garg has been booked under Section 354 of IPC.
Superintendent of police (SP) Santosh Singh said case is being investigated and a team would be sent to Delhi to question Garg. Meanwhile, Garg’s father and wife reached university road police station and inquired about the case. Police have asked them to support the investigation.
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/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 issued by CPIO, 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:-2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO):-
3. Particulars of Decision/Order of CPIO against which appeal:-
Decision vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 2013 received by appellant on 04 November 2013. Copy enclosed as Enclosure -1.
4. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 04 October 2013 was submitted to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Parking“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 04 October 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-2.
(b) Central Public Information Officer, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the application u/s 24(1) of RTI Act 2005 vide letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/69/Letter_2013 dated 29 October 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 04 October 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”.
(d) In point (c) (1) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur has not ordered for construction of any vehicle parking stand inside DMSRDE not being constructed”. It was also mentioned “Other information related to vehicle stand are also irrelevant and not applicable”.
(e) In point (d)(2) of reply dated 29 October, 2013 CPIO informed that “Regarding CSD Canteen, its functioning has started from 21st April 1977 and running continuously. The other information asked has no relevance with the allegations of Corruption. It is a social welfare activity and run in authorized manner with manually agreed terms & conditions of DMSRDE and MES office of, DMSRDE, Kanpur”.
(f) CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur rejected the RTI application dated 04 October 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 CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur attracts action on CPIO u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005.
(g) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CPIO, 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 04 October 2013 under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 04 October 2013 enclosed as Enclosure 2 to this FA.
(c) Information was denied by CPIO, 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 04 October 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 for getting the information.
(f) CPIO 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 CPIO, 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 04 October 2013 by appellant has been denied on false and invalid reasons by CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, DRDO to allow this appeal and issue instructions/orders to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to provide the information sought as seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 04 October 2013.
Direction may kindly be issued to CPIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur to work as per provisions of RTI Act 2005 and guidelines established in CIC decisions.
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 “Parking”. 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 is 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 04 October 2013. Information sought is 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 CPIO to establish that information sought is not having vigilance angle and pertaining to allegation of corruption. In case the prima facie evidences of Corruption are available the appellant will approach to CVC/CBI not file RTI to get information pertaining to allegations of Corruption?
i. It is alleged that Dr. AK Saxena, Director, DMSRDE misused his powers to construct/erect the parking shade near CSD Canteen. It has been accepted by Director, DMSRDE vide 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”. Again Chief Security Officer issued ION dated 03.10.2013 on behalf of Director regarding Car-Parking near Admin. Building. Again an ION was issued by Dr. DN Tripathi, Addl. Director(Admin) regarding parking area near CSD Canteen.
ii. This parking shade/vehicle stand was not constructed by MES or CCE (R&D) North. It was constructed by Director, DMSRDE using private contractor of his favor M/s Gupta Constructions, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur. Thereby CPIO provided false information vides his letter dated 29 October 2013.
iii. MES(Military Engineering Services) and CCE(R&D) are the only agencies authorize for any construction of buildings , to execute minor & major work in buildings, construction /erect of shades/parking area etc. in Technical & Residential area of DMSRDE.
iv. The source of fund used to erect two shades was from one project fund and not from build-up fund. Project fund cannot be used for construction work. Hence Dr. AK Saxena, Director misused his powers to illegal and unauthorized construction of two parking shades near CSD Canteen inside the Technical Area of DMSRDE, to give undue advantage to M/s Gupta Construction, Gandhi Gram, Kanpur with vested interest.
v. All supply orders for purchase of material used to erect the parking shades were issued to M/s Gupta Constructions who is neighbor to Dr. AK Saxena residence at Gandhi Gram, Kanpur.
vi. Misuse of powers for personal gains, unauthorized construction and misuse of funds is clear case of Corruption. Documents are available in records with DMSRDE which can be verified by FAA.
vii. It is 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.
viii. The nomenclature of building in which CSD canteen is running is CHEM STORE, as per MES record. Director, DMSRDE is using this building in unauthorized manner to run CSD Canteen in this building. CSD Canteen is a profitable URC under CSD hence it should pay rent as well as electrical charges to MES. In this connection MES also issued notice to CSD Canteen for payment of electrical charges and recently cut down the power of CSD for fifteen days, thereby CSD was closed for about fifteen days.
ix. Information sought is related to “Parking”. This information is not related to any scientific/technical/strategic matter. Therefore information related to contract, supply order, purchase, construction and manufacturing etc. is disclosable under RTI Act, CIC decisions mentioned above and even by FAA, DRDO.
8. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To, Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, IDAS Principal Controller PCDA (R&D), West Block-V R.K. Puram New Delhi-110066
Subject: First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference
Letter No. AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma dated 06.09.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
Letter No. AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P.Sharma dated 18.9.2013 issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi
Sir,
I am distressed by above referred decision of Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. I hereby submit this appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 for your kind consideration & decision.
1. Details of appellant:-
Name
J.P. Sharma
Address
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound, Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)
2. Details of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) whom RTI application was submitted:-
Name & Rank
Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDAS, Jt. CDA, CPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
3. Details of Central Assistant Public Information Officer(CAPIO) who replied the application filed under RTI Act
Name & Rank
Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer,CAPIO
Address
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066
4. Particulars of Decision/Order of CAPIO against which appeal:-
S.N.
Decision Letter No. & Date
Date
Encl. No.
1.
AN/RTI CELL/2013/j-p-sharma
06.09.2013
1
2.
AN-I/R&D/RTI CELL/2013/J.P. Sharma,
18.9.2013
2
NOTE: Application dated 20.08.2013 received to PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013
Copy of the letters received by appellant on 16.09.2013 and 28.09.2013 respectively. Copy enclosed as Enclosure-1 and Enclosure-2.
5. Brief facts leading to appeal:-
(a) An application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 dated 20 August 2013 was submitted to CPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi for providing information regarding “Bills passed by PCDA (R&D) forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 is enclosed as Enclosure-3.
(b) Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO), PCDA (R&D), New Delhi transferred the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 vide letters cited above.
(c) Under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, the application under RTI Act was illegally transferred by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi with malafide intentions under planned conspiracy with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi.
(d) Appellant is intensely upset by the decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and this leads to appellant to file an appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.
6. Reasons/Grounds for First Appeal:-
First Appeal is submitted to First Appellate Authority on following reasons/grounds.
(a) PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO“.
(b) PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.
(c) Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act, CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.
(d) Under the provisions Section 5 of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005.
(e) Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime. As per section 7(1), it is the mandate of the CPIO to provide information requested for by an informationseeker.RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO”.
(f) The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
(g) Therefore, transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 by CAPIO is illegal. Hence both letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are illegal and invalid under the provisions of RTI Act.
(h) Appellant is deeply distressed by invalid & illegal decision of CAPIO, PCDA (R&D), New Delhi hence the First Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 before First Appellate Authority (FAA).
7. Prayer /relief sought for:-
RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 submitted by appellant to CPIO, PCDA (R&D) has been illegally transferred under planned conspiracy of Public Authority of DMSRDE and Public Authority at PCDA including CPIO, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D), Main Branch, New Delhi.
Therefore, appellant kindly prays to FAA, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to allow this appeal and issue orders to CPIO, PCDA(R&D) , New Delhi to provide the full information as sought/seek by appellant vide his RTI Application dated 20 August 2013 under the provisions of Section 7(1) of RTI Act.
Under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act the information should be provided to appellant with in the thirty days of the receipt of the application. Since the RTI application was received by CPIO, PCDA (R&D) on 26.08.2013 and information sought in the application should be provided by CPIO to appellant till 26.09.2013.
Since the application dated 20.08.2013 was illegally and willfully transferred by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) with malafide intentions & motives to CPIO, DRDO HQ, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi. Therefore CPIO and CAPIO both are liable to be imposed penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of RTI Act by Hon’ble CIC.
8. Grounds for prayer/relief sought for:-
Gross Violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 in transfer of application to CPIO, DRDO HQ
a. Provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act are reiterated here for your kind information.
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,
The public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
b. PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is a Public Authority under Central Government of India. As per information available on website of PCDA (R&D), New Delhi “The organisation of PCDA (R&D) is responsible for payment, accounting and internal/local audit functions relating to DRDO”.
c. PCDA (R&D), New Delhi is the sole custodian of the information sought under RTI Application dated 20 August 2013. Therefore transfer of application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 is illegal.
d. The information sought by appellant is not held by DRDO and DMSRDE, Kanpur as information about bills and payments related to vendors who supplied store and services to DMSRDE is held only by PCDA(R&D) for Audit purpose.
e. Therefore PCDA (R&D) is sole custodian of information sought and CPIO, CAPIO or Public Authority could not transfer the application u/s 6(3) of the Act.
CAPIO is not authorize for transfer of application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005
a. Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of RTI Act , CAPIO is not authorized for transferring the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to any other public authority. CAPIO can only receive the application and forward to CPIO.
b. Under the provisions of RTI Act, only CPIO is authorize to transfer the application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 to CPIO of other Public Authority.
c. Vide CIC decision in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003779/LS dated 27 August 2013 (J.K. Mittal Vs. Delhi Police/PHQ), Hon’ble CIC held “CPIO is the fulcrum of the RTI regime. As per section 7(1), it is the mandate of the CPIO to provide information requested for by an information seeker . RTI application can be transferred only by the CPIO to another CPIO and not by ACPIO“.
d. Vide the CIC decision mentioned in point(c) above, Hon’ble CIC gave verdict that “As per Section 5(2), APIO is empowered only to receive RTI applications and then transmit them to the CPIO concerned. On the other hand, CPIO is empowered not only to receive RTI applications directly but also to respond tothem. Hence, the functions of the CPIO and APIO are distinct and not co-equal”.
3. Planned conspiracy of CPIO,CAPIO & Public Authority at PCDA(R&D) with Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur and CPIO, DRDO HQ, New Delhi
It is quite evident that information sought should be provided by PCDA(R&D) as this public authority has not been placed under Second Schedule of the Act, thereby PCDA(R&D) is bound to provide the information sought to the appellant within 30 days of receipt of the application under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
Under the planned conspiracy of two public authorities PCDA(R&D) and Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur the CPIO did not provided the information to the appellant and illegally manages to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ (Public Authority – DRDO) through his CAPIOMr. D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption and trying his all the best that evidences of his corruption could not be disclosed to the appellant. In promoting the corrupt practices of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE the officials at ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur are involved. Thereby they ignored serious lapses in purchases at DMSRDE during tenure of Dr. A.K. Saxena from 01.01.2011 to till date.
I would like to expose the movement of application submitted under RTI Act by Appellant at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi. The copy of application was send to Shri VK Singh, ACDA, AO (R&D), DMSRDE, Kanpur. In the AO(R&D) Office at DMSRDE, Kanpur , one Shri Anurag Srivastava, AAO is posted since last more than 10 years in the same office however all other officials were transferred on rotation basis as per transfer policy of PCDA(R&D).
Shri Anurag Srivastava is having close association with Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE on basis of casteism as both belongs to same cast known as Kayastha. Dr. A.K. Saxena managed stay of transfer/posting of Shri Anurag Srivastava several times using his official position.
On receiving of copy of application under RTI Act submitted by Appellant, Shri Anurag Shrivastava along with Shri V.K. Singh met to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE in his office and also to Shri Sarvesh , PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur. All of them planned a conspiracy to transfer the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ so that CPIO, DRDO deny the information under the shadow and shelter of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thereby their corrupt & anti-national activities could not be exposed.
4. Letters issued by CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) are illegal under RTI Act 2005
The application under Section 6(3) of RTI Act 2005 should be transferred within five days from the date of receipt of the application under the provisions of Section 6(3) of RTI Act. As mentioned above the application dated 20.08.2013 was received in office of PCDA(R&D) on 26.08.2013 therefore the application should be transferred up to 01 September 2013 but transfer of application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act on 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 is illegal under the provisions of RTI Act 2005. Therefore the both the letters issued by CAPIO dated 06.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are illegal & invalid as per provisions of Section 6(3) RTI Act 2005.
5. Letters signed by Shri D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer, CAPIO, PCDA(R&D)
As per the information available on PCDA (R&D) website pcdarnd.gov.in, Mr. D.S. Sheoran, Accounts Officer is CAPIO in main office. Both the letters dated 6.09.2013 and 18.09.2013 are signed by Mr. D.S. Sheoron, Accounts Officer, CAPIO.
6. Information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption
Dr. A.K. Saxena , Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur is involved in corruption, financial irregularities , violation of purchase rules as specified in Purchase Management 2006 and misuse of financial power vested to him by DRDO HQ. The information sought will expose the corruption in DMSRDE and nexus between DMSRDE and ACDA, AO(R&D) Office, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Appellant is surprised from the action and role of PCDA(R&D), CPIO and CAPIO on application dated 20.8.2013 by transferring the application to CPIO, DRDO HQ under gross violation of Section 6(3) of RTI Act and verdict in various decisions of Hon’ble Central Information Commission. It appears that like ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur the officials at PCDA (R&D), New Delhi are working under pressure of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
9. Declaration:-
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
J.P. Sharma
Advocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound,
Dehradun-248001(Uttarakhand)
Appeal No.: FA/JPS/PCDA(R&D)/2013/01
Date: 15 October, 2013
Enclosure: Three
(1) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013
(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
(3) RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(1) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 06 September 2013(2) Letter from CAPIO, PCDA(R&D) dated 18.09.2013
To, 20th August 2013Dr. Jairaj Naik, IDASJt. CDA, CPIOO/o PCDA (R&D), West BlockR.K. PuramNew Delhi-110066
Subject: Application /Request under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
Kindly provide the following information under section 2(f), 2(i), 2(j) and 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
Provide the details of bills passed for payments of third party (Vendor/ supplier /Firms) claims forwarded by DMSRDE, Kanpur by O/o PCDA (R&D), New Delhi and O/o AO (R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur for the period 01/01/2013 to 31/07/2013 for the amount between One lakh to Fifty lakh for purchase of store and services with following information in each bill.
i. Particulars of store (item purchased) and service hired ii. Particular of vendor/firm to which payment was made(Cheque issued) iii. Amount of bill/cheque issued iv. Date of payment v. Mode of tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Limited/Openi. vi. Whether repeat order(Yes/No)
Details of all bills passed and cheque issued by AO(R&D), ACDA, DMSRDE, Kanpur and O/o PCDA(R&D) in favour of SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd., New Delhi/ SM Carapace Armor, New Delhi with following information.
i. Particular of store (item purchased) and services hired. ii. Amount of bill iii. Date of payment/ cheque issued iv. Mode of Tendering- Single/Single with PAC/Repeat Order/Limited /Open
In one year how many repeat order can be issued as per Purchase Manual 2006 of DRDO/Any other Govt. Rules in case of
i. Store ii. Services
4. Whether repeat orders could be issued in case of services/AMC/ services hired like hired vehicle for transport etc as per PM 2006. (Yes/No)
5. If answer to point (4) is yes then provide the copy of said rule. 6. Whether M/s SM Pulp Packaging Pvt Ltd/SM Carapace Armor/or any other subsidiary of SM Group is registered with DMSRDE, Kanpur or with HEMRL, Pune (Yes/No)
7. If answer to point (6) is yes then provide copy of registration certificate issued by DMSRDE, Kanpur or HEMRL, Pune.
8. Provide the details/category under which any subsidiary firm under SM Group New Delhi like SM Pulp/SM Carapace is registered with HEMRL / DMSRDE as per Rule 3.2 of PM 2006. 9. If registered at HEMRL/DMSRDE then date of registration. 10. Copies of Supply Orders issued to SM Pulp Packaging/SM Carapace Armor for the Financial years
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Inspection of documents/records for passing the bills of SM Pulp Packaging and SM Carapace Armor , New Delhi for the FY 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2012-2013.
An IPO of Rs. 10 No. 16F 966245 is enclosed as application fee.
Date – 20th August 2013
( J P. Sharma)Advocate Chamber No.64, First floorOpposite Bar Council OfficeCourt CompoundDehradun-248001Uttarakhand
copy
Shri V.N. Singh, ACDA
AO (R&D), DMSRDE, GT Road, Kanpur-208013
FIRST APPEAL U/S 19(1) OF Right to Information Act, 2005
To,Shri Suranjan Pal, OS & Director DECSFirst Appellate Authority, DRDORTI Cell, Room No. 240/B, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji MargNew Delhi-110011
Subject:First Appeal under Section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005
Reference: Letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 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
J.P. Sharma, Advocate
Address
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office
Court Compound
Dehradun-248001(Uttrakhand
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/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September 2013 received by appellant on 27 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 20 August 2013 was submitted to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information regarding “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur“. Copy of the RTI Application dated 20 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/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 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 20 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 17 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 20 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 20 August 2013 under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 to PIO, DMSRDE, Kanpur for providing information as mentioned in application dated 20 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 20 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, personal information and public information, public interest, public authority, public fund 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 20 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 20 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 20 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 & gave verdict 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 submitted by Director, 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 20 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. A. K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE has violated Rule 18 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 as he did not submitted IPR, Movable property returns and Valuable property returns for several years. This ensures disciplinary action against him under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. This creates doubt on his integrity under Rule 3 of CCS(conducts) Rules 1964 and he is not suitable/Fit of administrative post like Director(Head of Establishment). Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director is having disproportionate assets by showing undervalued cost of property, which again is serious violation of conducts rules.
5. Two IPR files (.pdf) are available at DRDO website under the link Immovable Property Return. These two files for DMSRDE shows IPR of year 2010 and IPR 2012. Dr. Saxena disposed of his one house as reflected in IPR 2012 and cost of remaining house is reduced in IPR 2012. How it is possible since rate of property are increasing exponentially with time? Dr. A.K. Saxena did not submit the return of movable & valuable property as per Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr. AK Saxena thus Violated Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Dr A.K. Saxena did not inform the foreign visit of his family member (wife and two children of 14-15 years. As his wife and two children were on foreign visit to USA for 12-15 days. As per rules of Govt. of India , Dr. A.K. Saxena should intimate the transaction of expenditure incurred in this tour of his family members to DMSRDE under Rules 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules. Therefore the information sought is pertaining to allegations of corruption.
6. Information sought is related to “Immovable Property Return submitted by Director , DMSRDE , Kanpur“. 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 and it 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 and Valuable property return etc all the Public Information. Thereby the information sought is not personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
7. The information related toImmovable Property Return, Movable Property Return and Valuable property return 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.
IPR related information have been uploaded on website of DRDO therefore the information sought is public information and the personal information.
8. Information Sought is neither personal information nor covered u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005
In reply dated 17 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 20 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.
9. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964- Rule 18
Every Government servant shall submit a return of his Immovable Property Return, Movable property return and Valuable Property Return 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 Return 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 for purchase of Movable Property. 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.
10. 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.
11. Partial information of IPR is in Public domain on DRDO website
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, DMSRDE who is having disproportionate assets and is involved in corruption.
Appellant filed RTI Application on 20 August 2013 and this was received by PIO on 23 August 2013 as he claimed in his letter No. DMS/0369/RTI/101/55/Letter_2013 dated 17 September2013. Director managed to publish information regarding IPR of his own on DRDO Website under file name Immovable_property_return_2012_dmsrde.pdf with just few days prior to issue of RTI Application.
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 disposal of property by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE that was available in IPR of 2010. It means property return of disposal of property under Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules was not submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena. This grossly violates provisions of Rule 18 of CCS(Conducts) Rules 1964.
Therefore information related to IPR is public information not personal information. Thereby Information sought should be disclosed by PIO, DMSRDE.
12. 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. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is having disproportionate assets. The source of money, by which he purchased the disproportionate assets, came to him by means of corruption. The exact details and proofs will be disclosed before appropriate competent authority.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE did not declare his asset which he disposed of as per provisions of Rule 18 of CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964, thereby he violated CCS (Conducts) Rules 1964. He is liable for disciplinary action for concealing the facts and not providing return of their assets.
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.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE is involved in acquiring disproportionate assets by means of corruption and manipulation. This fraudulent nature establishes that their integrity is doubtful and he is not suitable for Government Service. The existence of such kind of official having fraudulent nature & doubtful integrity is not suitable for DRDO as they can harm the reputation of DRDO when he is sitting on the chair of Director (Head of the Establishment). This involves public activity as public money and public office are involved.
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.
13. 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.
14. 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 “Details of Immovable Property Return submitted by Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur” 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 20 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.
15. Denial of Information to promote Casteismin DMSRDE
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO, Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. AK, Dr. Vineeta Nigam 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 1964.
Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO, Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO , Dr. Anurag Srivastava, Mr. AKall are belongs to the cast known as Kayastha.
Dr. A.K. Saxena , Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, PIO and Mr. Anoop Kumar Nigam, APIO 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.
J.P. SharmaAdvocate
Chamber No. 64, First Floor
Opposite Bar Council Office, Court Compound
Dehradun-248001
(Uttrakhand)
Appeal No.:FA/JPS/DMSRDE/2013/01
Date: 10th October, 2013
Enclosure: Three
(1) Letter from CPIO, DMSRDE dated 17 September 2013
(2) RTI Application dated 20 August 2013.
(3) DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt.A dated 11th April 2011
To, 20 August 2013Shri Sarvesh KumarScientist ‘F’Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)DMSRDE, GT RoadKanpur-20801
Subject: Application under Right to Information Act 2005
Sir,
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). Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005.
INFORMATION SOUGHT
1. Details of movable, immovable and valuable property as submitted by Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE under the rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
2. Provide copy of return of assets and liabilities of Dr. A.K. Saxena as submitted by him under rule 18(1) (i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
3. Provide copies of Annual Immovable Property Return (IPR) submitted by Dr A.K.Saxena under rule 18(1) (ii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 for the years
2010
2011
2012
2013
Details of all the immovable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena,Director, DMSRDE 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
5. Details of all the movable properties acquired till 31 July, 2013 under rule 18 of CCS(Conduct) Rules 1964 by Dr. A. K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE with following information.
i. Description of the property i.e. Car / Scooter / Motor Cycle / Refrigerator/ Computer/ Laptop/Bank account /shares /investments /Jewellery/loans/Insurance policies etc
ii. Make, Model and also registration No. in case of vehicles, where necessary
iii. Purchase price of the property (Market value in the case of gifts
6. Provide copies of final intimation in form under rule 18(2) after purchase of the all immovable properties and in form under rule 18(3) after purchase of all the movable properties under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 in respect of Dr. A.K. Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
7. Provide details of family members/dependent for CGHS, LTC etc purpose under rule 2(c) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
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. F. No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000107 dated 26.4.2010 and 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 (IPO No.16 F 966251) is enclosed as Annexure-1.
Date:20 August , 2013
( J P. Sharma)AdvocateChamber No.64, First floorOpposite Bar Council Office, Court CompoundDehradun-248001Uttarakhand
Annexure:-
IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No. 16 F 966251 as application Fee
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
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.
Date:31 July, 2013
(Rajiv Chauhan)
1053/3, Shastrinagar,
Meerut(UP)-250005
Enc : IPO of Rs. 10/- , with IPO No 16F 964390
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
