Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01563-SM dated 14.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 14.01.2009
Appellant: Sher Singh Rana
Respondents: Indian Army, Ministry of Defence.
Appellant is present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following are present:
(i) Brig. P. Chakraborty, DDG RTI
(ii) Brig. Ved Prakash, DDG RTI(Designate)
(iii) Maj. M. Gahlot GSO-1 (Legal)
(iv) Col. Kuldeep, CRO, GRR
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. On behalf of a the Appellant, Shri Jagannath Sharma wrote to the CPIO in
the Army Headquarters on 30 May 2007 seeking a number of information
concerning the dismissal of the Appellant in 1947 following the Court Martial
proceedings instituted against him by the Army Authorities. The CPIO, in his
reply dated 3 August 2007 informed the Appellant that the relevant service
documents had been destroyed by burning during the year 1974, on completion
of 25 years of retention period after his dismissal in terms of paragraph 595 of
Regulations for the Army, 1987 (Revised Edition). Since the records were not
available, he could not provide the information sought. Against this denial of
information, the Appellant filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on
24 August 2007. The Appellate Authority decided his appeal in his order dated 11
October 2007. That Authority, more or less, upheld the decision of the CPIO. It is
against this order of the Appellate Authority that the Appellant has now
approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. The matter had come up for our consideration on 10 December 2008.
During the hearing on that date, the Appellant had raised a number of doubts
about the veracity of the Respondents’ claims about the destruction of service
records. The Respondents had been directed to offer their detailed comments on
a number of issues to clarify these doubts. Now, the Respondents have sent their
comments on the issues raised on the last date of hearing. On all the three issues,
the Respondents have, besides offering comments and clarifications, filed
documentary evidence in support of their comments. On a careful examination of
the records enclosed with the comments of the Respondents, we find that the
information already provided by the CPIO was in accordance with the available
records and there is sufficient and satisfactory explanation available in favour of
the Respondents’ claim about the destruction of the relevant records in 1974. In
view of these clarifications, it is not right to allege, as had been done by the
Appellant, that the Respondents had willfully not disclosed the details of the
information regarding the Appellant’s dismissal from service. The Respondent
handed over a copy of their communication dated 9 Jan 2009 addressed to the
Commission along with a copy of the relevant Long Roll to the Appellant in our
presence. The Respondent contended that they have no more information to be
given in this case.
4. We therefore dispose off this appeal without any further direction. Copies
of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar