BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION NEW DELHI

Appellant: Vikramjit Singh Randhawa 104/3, Pension Nagar, Behind Police Line Talki, NAGPUR 440 013. v/s Respondent public authority: Ordnance Factory Ambajhari P O Defence Project, Amravati Road, NAGPUR 440 021. File No: Date of hearing: CIC/LS/A/2012/901292 14/06/12 WRITTEN SUBMISSION The appellant has requested point-wise information on 3 points from Central Public Information Officer (hereafter referred as CPIO), Ordnance factory Ambajhari (hereafter referred as OFAJ) vide his application dt 11/09/11 (received by OFAJ on 12/09/11). As per Sec 7 (1) of RTI Act 2005 the CPIO was duty bound to provide the information to the appellant within 30 days i.e. till 11/10/11. CPIO had not replied to the information request of appellant hence the appellant preferred First Appeal u/sec 19 (1) of RTI Act 2005 to First Appellate Authority (hereafter referred as FAA) of Ordnance factory Ambajhari. The CPIO, vide his reply dt 23/10/12 (received on 27/10/11), had provided a part information. Also the appellant has requested certified copies of documents in his original request while CPIO had just forwarded mere photo copies of documents. The appellant, being aggrieved by CPIOs response, has filed an addendum to the First Appeal on 02/11/11 (received by OFAJ on 03/11/11). The appellant would like to submit following few lines before the Honorable Commission for kind consideration please: 1. The information requested in original application of appellant on 3 points is maintained by sections which are under direct control of CPIO himself. Information against point no (1) & (2) is maintained by Establishment section while information against point no (3) is maintained by Vigilance section. If CPIO does not provide the information held by offices under his own control within stipulated 30 days, it means that the information was intentionally delayed / refused. 2. As per CPIOs reply dt. 23/10/11, the documents requested at point 1 (d) in original application of appellant were not readily available and will be forwarded shortly. However FAA, in his reply dt 15/11/12, states that Shri Swapnil Dahake had submitted resignation Page 1 of 6

from service and the requested documents in his respect were not generated and the copy of resignation Factory Order was given with the reply. The copy of Factory Order was not requested by appellant rather the appellant has requested the copy of file noting. As the file noting were generated in other 3 cases (the copies of which have been provided), it is not possible that the same were not generated for Shri Swapnil Dahake. The copy of requested noting is intentionally denied by both CPIO and FAA. The information is being intentionally denied because OFAJ administration had obtained under duress the bond amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Shri Swapnil Dahake while the other 3 employees were exempted from the same after quoting the statutory rules framed by Govt of India for the purpose. 3. Against point no (2), the appellant has requested the certified copy of comments given by Sr. GM / OFAJ on appeal given by Vikramjit Singh Randhawa for forwarding to DGOF & Chairman / Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). The information requested is not provided by CPIO rather the copy of forwarding letter signed by Jt. General Manager / Admin and addressed to Secretary / OFB (Section: A/NG). The appellant has filed an appeal with DGOF & Chairman / OFB challenging the order of Sr. GM / OFAJ for not forwarding the application of appellant for the post of Deputy Manager (Quality / QC) in HAL (A Defence PSU). How Jt. General Manager / Admin can forward the appeal addressed to DGOF and Chairman / OFB to any other official? It implies that the decision of not forwarding the appellants application was taken against the statutory rules and when the sufferer challenges the wrong decision, his appeal is also not forwarded to proper authority. It simply shows the intention of harassing the appellant. The application for outside employment of 4 employees (Copies of their documents were requested at point no (1)) were forwarded and that of the appellant was not forwarded which seems to be a clear discrimination amongst employees. Such discrimination attracts the provisions of Sub-rule 2 of Clause 2 of Rule 3 of CCS Conduct rules 1964. Also the appellant would like to draw the attention of Honorable Commission on the fact that discrimination is done as the appellant is an RTI activist, imparts training on RTI to interested colleagues / members of general public free of charge, extends free assistance to information seekers, etc. There are many more instances where such discrimination or harassment of appellant is done by OFAJ administration. 4. Against point no (3), the appellant has requested the certified copy of comments given by Sr. GM / OFAJ on letter no NDNGSA/OFAJ/2011/31, dt 27/08/11 (received by OFAJ on 27/08/11 itself) for forwarding to DGOF & Chairman / Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). The information is malafidely denied stating that the subject of the letter is not mentioned. The Page 2 of 6

FAA has also seconded the opinion of CPIO and has denied the information on same ground. The letter number and date is sufficient information to trace the letter. The CPIO and FAA of OFAJ states in their respective orders that the files in OFAJ are maintained subject-wise. It seems that they have forgotten that the appellant is the employee of the same factory. The requested letter (copy enclosed) was written by appellant regarding the harassment of JWMs (Gazetted Officers) of OFAJ by OFAJ administration and for redressal of their grievances and has also seek the intervention of DGOF & Chairman / OFB in the matter. Hence the copy of letter is being malafidely denied by OFAJ because the OFAJ administration is intentionally harassing the JWMs and they do not want that the JWMs or any other person on behalf of JWMs shall seek the redressal of their grievances. Relief Sought: 1. Direct the CPIO to provide the complete / remaining information requested by appellant at the earliest. 2. Impose the penalty of Rs. 250 / day of delay (from date when the information was supposed to be received by appellant till the date on which the information will be actually received) in providing the information on CPIO as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act 2005. 3. Recommend disciplinary action under section 20 (2) of RTI Act 2005, under present service rules, against CPIO and FAA for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading information to appellant. 4. Award suitable compensation to appellant for compensating the mental agony suffered due to the acts of OFAJ officials. 5. Any other order the Honorable Commission may deem fit.

Date: 02/06/12 Place: Nagpur

(Signature of Appellant)

Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6