+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force...

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force...

Date post: 13-Mar-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 6 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
67
Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067 Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548 Email – [email protected] File Nos. As per Annexure 1(1) to 1(11) Date of Decision:18/04/2017 Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal(s): Appellant : Wg. Cdr Sanjeev Sharma (Retd) Advocate (P/863/2013) Punjab & Haryana High Court 2149, Jalvayu Vihar Sector – 67, Mohali – 160062 Respondent(s) : CPIO Dte. of Pers., Air HQ, Vayu Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011 CPIO Western Air Command, IAF Subroto Park, New Delhi-110010 CPIO Central Air Command, IAF Bamrauli, Allahabad-211012 CPIO Eastern Air Command, IAF Nonglyer Post, Upper Shillong, Meghalaya- 793009 CPIO Southern Air Command, IAF Akkulum, Trivandrum, Kerala-695001 CPIO
Transcript
Page 1: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

1

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONClub Building (Near Post Office)

Old JNU Campus,New Delhi-110067Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548

Email – [email protected]

File Nos. As per Annexure 1(1) to 1(11)

Date of Decision:18/04/2017

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal(s):

Appellant : Wg. Cdr Sanjeev Sharma (Retd)Advocate (P/863/2013)Punjab & Haryana High Court2149, Jalvayu ViharSector – 67, Mohali – 160062

Respondent(s) : CPIODte. of Pers., Air HQ,Vayu BhawanRafi Marg, New Delhi-110011

CPIOWestern Air Command, IAFSubroto Park, New Delhi-110010

CPIOCentral Air Command, IAFBamrauli, Allahabad-211012

CPIOEastern Air Command, IAFNonglyer Post, Upper Shillong,Meghalaya- 793009

CPIOSouthern Air Command, IAFAkkulum, Trivandrum, Kerala-695001

CPIO

Page 2: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

2

South Western Air Command, IAFSec.9, Gandhinagar, Gujarat- 382009

CPIOTraining Command, IAFJ C Nagar, Bengaluru-560006

CPIOMaintenance Command, IAFVayusena Nagar, Nagpur- 440007

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA

1. The present set of Appeals (1282 in number) arise out of RTIApplications filed by the Appellant against different Commands of IndianAir Force and it has been decided to adjudicate upon the Appeals byputting same subject matters under one head (which may or may nothave the same date of RTI Application) and have been listed for hearingsin different bunches. This has been done after taking into considerationthe fact that these RTI Applications are seeking the same informationbut in the context of different Air Commands, yet the basic contentionsand relief sought in Appeal would be suited for a composite listing of thematters in order to cut down on the time and resources invested inadjudicating on each Appeal separately.

2. For sake of brevity, following abbreviations in the preceding paragraphs(in no particular order) shall be read as under:

IAF- Indian Air Force WAC- Western Air Command EAC- Eastern Air Command SAC- Southern Air Command CAC-Central Air Command SWAC- South Western Air Command TC- Training Command MC- Maintenance Command Air HQ- Air Headquarter CSD- Canteen Stores Department URC-Unit Run Canteen

Page 3: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

3

AOC/CO- Air Officer Commanding/Commanding Officer SNCO Mess- Staff Non-Commissioned Officer’s Mess PSI- President Services Institute AFWWA- Air Force Wives Welfare Association C ADM O- Chief Administrative Officer DSC Mess- Defence Security Corps Mess NPF- Non-Public Fund SASO- Senior Air Staff Officer NC(E) - Non-Combatant (Enrolled) AFGIS- Air Force Group Insurance Society IAFBA- Indian Air Force Benevolent Association AFO- Air Force Order IFS- Institute of Flight Safety SAO- Senior Officer In-charge Administration CWF- Central Welfare Fund

3. Following is a chronology of dates and number of RTI Applications filedCommand wise:

S.No

AirCommand(s) &AirHQ

No.ofRTIApplication(s)filed

Date of RTIApplication

CPIO Reply FirstAppealfiled on

FAA orderdated

SecondAppeal filedon

1. WAC 9 01/08/2014 14/08/2014 01/09/2014 No order 20/10/20143 14/08/2014 No reply 07/10/2014 No order 06/01/20153 27/01/2014 21/03/2014 03/03/2014 No order 16/08/20142 30/01/2014 No reply 03/03/2014 No order 29/04/20141 08/08/2014 14/08/2014 01/09/2014 No order 20/10/2014113 23/06/2015 29/07/2015 13/08/2015 No order 30/09/20151 02/07/2014 17/07/2014 02/08/2014 No order 04/10/201494 29/06/2015 06/08/2015 13/08/2015 No order 30/09/201583 25/05/2015 03/07/2015 27/07/2015 No order 21/09/20155 04/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20141 13/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20141 03/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20141 25/07/2014 14/08/2014 01/09/2014 No order 20/10/20141 05/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/201465 30/04/2015 08/06/2015 03/07/2015 No order 31/08/20151 28/01/2014 No reply 03/03/2014 No order 05/05/2014

Page 4: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

4

19 17/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/201410 24/10/2014 No reply 01/12/2014 No order 20/01/20151 12/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20141 20/07/2014 14/08/2014 01/09/2014 No order 20/10/20141 01/02/2014 No reply 06/03/2014 No order 04/07/201411 30/08/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20142 29/08/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20143 10/09/2014 05/11/2014 02/12/2014 09/01/2015 07/04/20155 01/08/2014 17/08/2014 27/09/2014 No order 06/01/20151 09/01/2014 07/02/2014 13/02/2014 No order 02/06/20142 13/01/2014 07/02/2014 17/02/2014 No order 02/06/20142 04/06/2014 17/07/2014 02/08/2014 No order 10/10/20144 06/01/2014 07/02/2014 10/02/2014 No order 30/05/20141 09/03/2014 16/04/2014 17/05/2014 No order 27/09/20145 25/10/2014 No reply 01/12/2014 No order 20/01/20152 20/01/2015 No reply 14/03/2015 No order 12/05/20152 16/09/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 29/12/20141 28/08/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 No order 26/12/20141 03/02/2014 No reply 01/03/2014 No order 29/04/20143 02/02/2014 No reply 06/03/2014 No order 02/07/2014

2. CAC 6 04/04/2015 No reply 05/05/2015 No order 24/08/201512 25/04/2015 No reply 24/06/2015 No order 24/08/201544 23/06/2015 No reply 24/08/2015 No order 29/10/20151 21/09/2014 03/11/2014 20/12/2014 No order 25/04/20151 22/09/2014 14/01/2015 18/11/2014 No order 21/03/20151 09/07/2014 13/08/2014 06/09/2014 07/10/2014 10/01/2015

3. EAC 7 04/07/2014 05/08/2014 06/09/2014 18/10/2014 20/01/2015118 29/06/2015 No reply 03/08/2015 No order 29/10/20151 01/09/2014 13/10/2014 12/11/2014 14/01/2015 21/03/201531 07/04/2015 28/04/2015 12/05/2015 No order 31/08/20154 21/09/2014 14/01/2015 18/11/2014 No order 21/03/201541 25/05/2015 26/06/2015 01/08/2015 No order 29/10/20151 28/07/2014 28/08/2014 20/09/2014 18/10/2014 20/01/2015

4. SAC 22 29/06/2015 06/08/2015 12/08/2015 16/09/2015 24/12/201527 18/05/2015 27/07/2015 12/08/2015 16/09/2015 24/12/2015

5. SWAC 1 07/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 22/12/2014 17/01/201582 23/06/2015 No reply 24/08/2015 No order 29/10/201511 04/04/2015 No reply 05/05/2015 No order 24/08/20152 24/10/2014 No reply 01/12/2014 22/12/2014 20/01/20154 17/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 22/12/2014 17/01/201539 25/05/2015 No reply 22/07/2015 No order 29/10/2015

Page 5: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

5

1 12/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 22/12/2014 17/01/20158 08/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 22/12/2014 17/01/20152 25/10/2014 No reply 01/12/2014 22/12/2014 20/01/20152 06/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 22/12/2014 17/01/20156 16/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 22/12/2014 17/01/2015

6. TC 71 23/06/2015 31/07/2015 10/08/2015 16/09/2015 23/11/201511 30/08/2014 06/10/2014 20/10/2014 24/11/2014 06/01/20157 29/08/2014 06/10/2014 20/10/2014 24/11/2014 06/01/20151 13/09/2014 27/10/2014 15/11/2014 09/01/2015 21/03/20152 01/09/2014 06/10/2014 20/10/2014 24/11/2014 06/01/2015

7. MC 58 29/06/2015 29/07/2015 05/08/2015 No order 07/12/201515 10/09/2014 21/10/2014 01/11/2014 27/11/2014 22/12/20141 01/09/2014 17/09/2014 27/09/2014 30/10/2014 12/11/20143 01/08/2014 17/09/2014 27/09/2014 30/10/2014 12/11/20148 13/09/2014 21/10/2014 01/11/2014 No order 22/12/201460 23/06/2015 28/07/2015 03/08/2015 No order 07/12/201520 07/04/2015 12/05/2015 16/06/2015 22/07/2015 02/09/201525 17/09/2014 21/10/2014 01/11/2014 27/11/2014 22/12/20141 24/10/2014 24/11/2014 03/12/2014 19/01/2015 10/02/201539 25/05/2015 12/06/2015 03/07/2015 10/08/2015 02/09/20158 12/09/2014 21/10/2014 01/11/2014 27/11/2014 22/12/20141 28/07/2014 17/09/2014 27/09/2014 30/10/2014 12/11/20144 10/02/2015 03/03/2015 21/03/2015 No order 18/05/20152 10/07/2014 07/08/2014 16/08/2014 12/09/2014 30/09/20149 16/09/2014 21/10/2014 01/11/2014 27/11/2014 22/12/2014

4. Following are the details of different dates of hearing along with thenumber of Appeals heard and broad area of subject matters covered:

S.No.

Date ofHearing

ConcernedRespondent

No. ofAppealsheard &Annexures

No. of broad subjectmatters covered

1 25.11.2016 WAC 39[Annex.1(1)]

CSD, Air Force School,AOC/CO funds, PSI Ventures

2 16.12.2016 WAC 73[Annex.1(2)]

SNCO Mess, Air ForceHospital, AOC/CO,CPIO/APIO/PIO/FAA,Movable/Immovable assets,AFWWA

3 20.12.2016 CAC 24 AOC/CO, CSD/URC, Annual

Page 6: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

6

[Annex.1(3)] Commanders Conference,Farewell Parties, C ADM O,Officer’s residence

4 23.12.2016 CAC 28[Annex.1(4)]

Officers Mess, Trees,CPIO/APIO/FAA, AFWWA,PSI Ventures

5 05.01.2017 WAC 28[Annex.1(5)]

PSI Ventures, SNCO Mess

6 12.01.2017 WAC 46[Annex.1(6)]

CPIO/APIO/FAA, CSD/URC

7 22.03.2017 WAC, CAC,EAC, SAC,SWAC, TC &MC

244[Annex.1(7)]

AOC/CO Funds, AFWWA,Farewell Parties, Residenceof Officers, Income &Expenditure

8 23.03.2017 WAC, EAC,SAC, SWAC& MC

190[Annex.1(8)]

Annual Commandersconference, CPIO/APIO/FAAdetails, Census of Trees &Wild Animals

9 24.03.2017 WAC, CAC,EAC, SAC,SWAC, TC &MC

308[Annex.1(9)]

SNCO Mess, Officers Mess,Airmen & DSC Mess & theirincome and expenditure

10 28.03.2017 WAC, CAC,EAC, SAC,SWAC, TC &MC

99[Annex.1(10)]

Movable/Immovable assets,Farewell Parties, Residenceof CADMO, Income &expenditure of NPFs & AirForce Schools, disposal ofpersonal applications

11 29.03.2017 WAC, CAC,EAC, SAC,SWAC, TC &MC

203[Annex.1(11)]

PSI Ventures, NPFs income& expenditure, CSD/URC

5. The following parties were present on different dates of hearing:

S.No. Date ofHearing

Parties

1 25.11.2016 Appellant: Present in person.Respondent: Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu, CPIO, HQ WACIAF, New Delhi present in person.

Page 7: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

7

2 16.12.2016 Appellant: Present on phone.Respondent: Wg Cdr R.S. Pabla, CPIO and Cpl A.Madhwan, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present inperson.

3 20.12.2016 Appellant: Present on phone.Respondent: Wg. Cdr V.S. Suhag, Command Dy.Judge Advocate & CPIO, CAC, Indian Air Force,Allahabad present in person.

4 23.12.2016 Appellant: Present through VC.Respondent: Wg. Cdr V.S. Suhag, Command Dy.Judge Advocate & CPIO, CAC, Indian Air Force,Allahabad present in person.

5 05.01.2017 Appellant: Present through VC.Respondent: Wg. Cdr R.S. Pabla, CPIO and Cpl Ravi,HQ WAC, IAF, New Delhi present in person.

6 12.01.2017 Appellant: Not Present.Respondent: Wg Cdr R.S. Pabla, CPIO, HQ WAC, IAF,New Delhi present in person.

7 22.03.2017 Appellant: Not present.Respondent: Represented by Wg. Cdr D Anil Kumar,CPIO, Wg Cdr M Parajpey, IHQ of MoD(Air) and SqnLdr S.S. Elamurugu, CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhipresent in person.

8. 23.03.2017 Appellant: Not present.Respondent: Represented by Wg. Cdr D Anil Kumar,CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Air) and Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu,CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present in person.

9. 24.03.2017 Appellant: Not present.Respondent: Represented by Wg. Cdr D Anil Kumar,CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Air) and Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu,CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present on phone.(Written submission brought by Cpl Ravi Kumar,HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi).

10. 28.03.2017 Appellant: Not present.Respondent: Represented by Wg. Cdr D Anil Kumar,CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Air) and Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu,CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present onphone.(Written submission brought by MWO S.C.Sharma, Air HQ, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi)

11. 29.03.2017 Appellant: Not present (confirmed by Rohit, VC

Page 8: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

8

Operator, NIC Centre Chandigarh).Respondent: Represented by Wg. Cdr D Anil Kumar,CPIO, IHQ of MoD (Air) and Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu,CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present onphone.(Written submission brought by MWO S.C.Sharma, Air HQ, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi).

5. Following is a brief of the information sought subject matter wise fromvarious Air Commands :

S.No Information Sought in various versions under different subjectmatters.

i. AOC/CO CONTINGENCY FUNDThe Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO ContingencyFund in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on,area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent onmaintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary fromgovernment funds, how many combatants/civilians working there,income expenditure from 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with filenoting(s) & policies and any other relevant information

The Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO ContingencyFund in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on,area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent onmaintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary fromgovernment funds, how many combatants/civilians working thereand any other relevant information.

ii. AIR FORCE WIVES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (L)The Appellant sought information regarding AFWWA (L) in terms ofwhich land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land,who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/newconstructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of themanaging committee & officers in-charge of past three years,whether they get their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from

Page 9: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

9

01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and anyother relevant information

iii. TREES/FOREST/WILD ANIMALSThe Appellant sought information regarding number of trees in thearea of operation of Air Force Stations from 01.01.1995 to31.08.2014, how many trees have been cut/fallen/pruneddeliberately/by natural reasons along with file noting(s) & policies,how much money spent and earned from this, where is itdeposited, who are the approving authorities for the expenditure,who has taken permission from the Forest Department, copy ofapproval and applications, how many combatant/civilians areworking on this job, if they are paid honorarium etc, if trees are notcut, will it affect operations.

The Appellant sought information regarding number of wild animalsin the area of operation of Air Force Units from 01.01.1995 to20.10.2014, how many animals have been killed/dieddeliberately/by natural reasons along with file noting(s) & policies,how many guns/bullets have been used on this, who are theapproving authorities for this, who has taken permission from theWildlife Department, copy of approval and applications, how manycombatant/civilians are working on this job, if they are paidhonorarium etc, if animal/birds are not killed, will it affectoperations.

iv. SNCO MESS/OFFICER’S MESS/AIRMEN MESS/DSC MESSThe Appellant sought information regarding SNCOs Mess of AirForce Units & Stations in terms of which land (private orgovernment) it is built on, area of the land, money spent onmaintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary fromgovernment funds, how many combatants/civilians working there,income expenditure from 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with filenoting(s) & policies and any other relevant information

The Appellant sought information regarding SNCOs Mess of AirForce Units & Stations in terms of which land (private orgovernment) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water &

Page 10: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

10

electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructionsbetween 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managingcommittee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether theyget their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009 with file noting(s) & policies and anyother relevant information.

The Appellant sought information regarding Officer’s Mess of AirForce Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it isbuilt on, area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, moneyspent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, how many combatants/civilians workingthere and any other relevant information.

The Appellant sought information regarding Airmen & DSC Messesof Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government)it is built on, area of the land, amount spent on lease/rent/buying,money spent on maintenance/new constructions between01.08.2014 and 24.05.2015, members of the managing committeeof past three years, whether they are IAF officers orprivate/civilians, how much money is charged by each airman & DSCperson living there, how much ration was under drawn, sold during01.08.2014 and 24.05.2015, how many combatants/civiliansworking there etc., and any other relevant information.

The Appellant sought information regarding Airmen & DSC Messesof Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government)it is built on, area of the land, amount spent on lease/rent/buying,money spent on maintenance/new constructions between01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committeeof past three years, whether they are IAF officers orprivate/civilians, how much money is charged by each airman & DSCperson living there, how much ration was under drawn, sold during01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, how many combatants/civiliansworking there etc., and any other relevant information.

v. DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL APPLICATIONSThe Appellant sought disposal of his applications dated 08.04.2011,

Page 11: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

11

28.03.2011, 21.03.2011, 28.02.2011 regarding withdrawal of VSMfrom Air Vice Marshal P K Srivastava.

The Appellant sought disposal of his application dated 01/10/2010regarding interview with Director General (Inspection & Safety) on01.10.2010.

The Appellant sought disposal of his applications dated 18.01.2010,09.02.2010 regarding disciplinary action against Air Vice Marshal P KSrivastava.

The Appellant sought disposal of his applications dated 17.02.2011and 31.03.2011 regarding ROG against Gp. Capt. AK Sen.

The Appellant sought disposal of his 5 applications dated31.01.2011, 07.03.2011, 11.03.2011, 31.01.2011 regarding variousissues.

The Appellant sought disposal of his application dated 07.03.2011regarding initiating disciplinary action against Air Vice Marshal P KSrivastava.

vi. MOVABLE/IMMOVABLE ASSET DECLARATIONThe Appellant sought information regarding how manyOfficers/Airmen/NC(E) of Air Force Station(s) have purchasedFlats/houses/land/Cars/two wheelers between the period of21.10.2014 to 24.05.2015, how many of them took loan fromAFGIS/IAFBA after approval of AOC/CO, how many of themreported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000, what action has beentaken against those who have not reported the same, who is thecompetent authority to take action against these officers.

The Appellant sought information regarding how manyOfficers/Airmen/NC(E) of Air Force Station(s) have purchasedpersonal computers/laptops from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014 inabsolute numbers as well as percentage of the whole, how many ofthem took loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after approval of AOC/CO, howmany of them reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000, whataction has been taken against those who have not reported thesame, who is the competent authority to take action against these

Page 12: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

12

officers.

He sought similar information regarding purchase ofFlats/houses/land/Cars/two wheelers other expensive itemsbeyond the time limit as prescribed in AFO 20/2000 for whichpermission reporting is mandatory, from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014,how many of them took loan from provident fund for the afterapproval of AOC/CO etc.

vii. OFFICER’S RESIDENCEThe Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO residence ofAir Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government) itis built on, area of the land, how much money is paid tobuy/lease/rent it, money spent on maintenance/new constructionsbetween 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, authorities for approving theexpenditure of public/non public funds whether govt officers orprivate, who has been the AOC-in-C for last 20 years, if he is a publicauthority and is authorised to accept gifts etc. from Non-PublicFunds, how many such items are there is his residence, how manyair-conditioners etc, how much was the electricity bill from01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, how many parties were organised atthis conference by taken money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFsduring this period, how many combatants/civilians working there, ifthey get honorarium etc.

The Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO residence ofAir Force Units in terms of on which land (private or government) itis built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/newconstructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, who are theapproving authorities for the expenditure with file noting(s) &policies, who has been the AOC/CO for last three years, whetherAOC/CO, is he authorized to accept donations, gifts etc, how muchwas the electricity bill for the same period, how many parties havebeen organised at the residence by taking help of the Non-publicfunds, if civilians/combatants are working, whether they get theirsalary from government funds etc.

The Appellant sought information regarding residence of C ADM Oof Air Force Stations and Institute of Flight Safety (IFS) in terms ofon which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the

Page 13: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

13

land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent onmaintenance/new constructions between 01.01.1996 and31.12.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary fromgovernment funds, how many combatants/civilians working there,income expenditure from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014 with filenoting(s) & policies and any other relevant information

He also sought similar aforesaid information regarding SOA, HQ CACresidence.

The Appellant sought information regarding residences of variousofficers in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on,area of the land, how much money is paid to buy/lease/rent it,money spent on maintenance/new constructions between01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, authorities for approving theexpenditure of public/non public funds whether govt officers orprivate, who has been the AOC-in-C for last 20 years, if he is a publicauthority and is authorised to accept gifts etc. from Non-PublicFunds, how many such items are there is his residence, how manyair-conditioners etc, how much was the electricity bill from01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, how many parties were organised atthis conference by taken money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFsduring this period, how many combatants/civilians working there, ifthey get honorarium etc.

viii. PRESIDENT SERVICE INSTITUTEThe Appellant sought information regarding PSI Office & itsventures of Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private orgovernment) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water &electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructionsbetween 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of the managingcommittee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether theyget their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and anyother relevant information

The Appellant sought information regarding PSI Office & itsventures of Air Force Stations in terms of on which land (private or

Page 14: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

14

government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent onmaintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary fromgovernment funds, how many combatants/civilians working there,income expenditure from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009 with filenoting(s) & policies and any other relevant information.

ix. UNIT RUN CANTEEN/CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENTThe Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air ForceStations & Units in terms of which land (private or government) it isbuilt on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/newconstructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of themanaging committee & officers in-charge of past three years,whether they get their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and anyother relevant information.

The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air ForceStations & Units in terms of which land (private or government) it isbuilt on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/newconstructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of themanaging committee & officers in-charge of past three years,whether they get their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 with file noting(s) & policies and anyother relevant information.

The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air ForceStations in terms of which land (private or government) it is builton, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/newconstructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of themanaging committee & officers in-charge of past three years,whether they get their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009 with file noting(s) & policies and anyother relevant information.

The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air Force

Page 15: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

15

Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is builton, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/newconstructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of themanaging committee & officers in-charge of past three years,whether they get their salary from government funds, how manycombatants/civilians working there, if they get honorarium etc. andany other relevant information.

x. CPIO/APIO/PIO/FAAThe Appellant sought information regarding who have been theCPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA from 11.09.2014 to 24.05.2015 of Air ForceStations and of AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOsMess, Air Force School, Gas Agency, CSD Canteen, PSI Office,AFWWA(Local) and CWF of the unit, their address and details, nameof approving authority of their appointment, whom do they handover charges while going on leave, copy of handing over/taking overregister, action taken against them for not handing over charges,where are these details published, if not published what action hasbeen initiated, how many combatant civilians are working in RTICells and if they get honorarium for the same.

xi. ANNUAL COMMANDER’S CONFERENCEThe Appellant sought information regarding expenditure from AirForce Stations on Annual Commanders Conference from01/01/1996 to 31/12/2014, AOC/CO from the Station who attendedconference, authorities for approving the expenditure of public/nonpublic funds whether govt officers or private, how many partieswere organised at this conference by takenmoney/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, howmany combatants/civilians were working here and related matter.

xii. AIR FORCE SCHOOLSThe Appellant sought information regarding income & expenditurealong with policies and file noting(s) for the period of 01.01.2011 to30.11.2013 of Air Force Schools.

xiii. FAREWELL PARTIESThe Appellant sought information regarding farewell parties toAOC/CO of Air Force Stations and Air Force Hospital, in terms of

Page 16: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

16

who was the AOC/CO from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014, how muchexpenditure was done on the conduct of the farewell parties fromvarious funds , venue of these parties, who was the AOC/CO whoattended the parties, if his wife also attended it, if so, on whatauthority, what was the purpose, if she did so by being a privatecitizen or a public authority, did she receive gifts in the parties,source of these gifts, who were the approving authorities for theexpenditure of these public/non-public funds, file noting(s) etc onthe approval of expenditure and the amount of money spent, howmany parties were organised by taking money from non-publicfunds, how many combatants/civilians were working there, if theywere paid honorariums etc.

The Appellant sought information regarding farewell parties toSASO of various HQs, in terms of who was the SASO from01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014, how much expenditure was done on theconduct of the farewell parties from various funds , venue of theseparties, who was the SASO who attended the parties, if his wife alsoattended it, if so, on what authority, what was the purpose, if shedid so by being a private citizen or a public authority, did shereceive gifts in the parties, source of these gifts, who were theapproving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non-public funds, file noting(s) etc on the approval of expenditure andthe amount of money spent, how many parties were organised bytaking money from non-public funds, how manycombatants/civilians were working there, if they were paidhonorariums etc.

xiv. INCOME & EXPENDITUREIncome and expenditure of AOC/CO Contingency Fund, OfficersMess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency, CSD Canteen, PSIOffice, AFWWA(Local) and CWF of Air Force Station, Belgaum withname of combatants/civilians working in them from 01/01/1995 to15/09/2014, along with copies of policies and file noting.

7. SUBMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES:

7.1 Appellant’s submissions:

Page 17: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

17

In the initial hearing of these Appeals, Appellant started out by giving a briefbackground of Indian Air Force by mentioning the number of Commands,Stations etc. to highlight an impending issue, which is that IAF has only 8 CPIOs,viz. 7 at Command level and 1 at HQ level. He alleged this to be a concertedstep taken by the higher echelons of IAF to only frustrate the spirit of RTI Actand it is per force that he has been filing number of RTI Applications with onlyone CPIO. He admits that largely IAF has been doing well and that he washimself a proud part of it, yet there is a parallel economy running inside thefraternity and there are different sources of corruption. It is asserted that hisprimary intention is to fight corruption. He raises the issue of funds allocated inthe name of non-public funds being misused for personal interests within thehierarchy and that it is used as a source of income generation with vestedinterests rather than aiming at the welfare of the forces.

Appellant’s contentions specific to each subject matter is stated as follows:

S.No Subject Matter Contentionsi. AOC/CO

contingencyfund

Funds are raised from the profits of Unit RunCanteen, It is alleged that the AOC/CO office is rightnext to the AOC office and that signatures of officersare taken on blank papers to show expenditures,primarily contends that it should be a publicauthority in the backdrop of the requirements ofbeing one as per RTI Act that is in terms of land, costof construction, rent if any paid, income, who are theadministrators of NPF, who are the members, secrettelephones have been given for the functioning ofNPF which in normal course is not provided tocivilians, IAF charges rent for these secrettelephones, governing rules are made by Air HQ, ifthe land is withdrawn, will the establishment stillfunction?

ii. Air Force WivesWelfareAssociation (L)

It is contended that whilst the Indian Air Force isshort of manpower, yet combatants/officers aredeployed for assisting AFWWA in its functioning, hequestioned if AFWWA is claimed to be a privateventure are serving government servants allowed towork in private ventures also? If the honorariumprovided to these official on account of performing

Page 18: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

18

duties for AFWWA, gets reflected in their salary forthe purpose of income tax return and since AFWWAif being a private venture has been using multiple IAFfacilities for its smooth functioning, it amounts toanti-national activities.

iii. Trees/Forest/Wild Animals

It was stated that before cutting/uprooting trees, IAFhas to take permission from the Forest Department,and that the Board of Officers take a decision on howmany trees re to be cut and they have records ofhow many trees have been perished due to naturalreasons, all details of money spent on maintenanceof trees is available in the official file of the C ADM O,which is why he had sought for the information.

iv. SNCO’sMess/Officer’sMESS/Airmen &DSC Mess

Contribution is again taken from SNCOs, that there isa misuse of manpower in as much as thecooks/waiters posted to work in the Mess, insteadwork in the AOC residence.If all this involves non-public funds, then why arepeople in uniform working therein.

v. Disposal ofapplications

NIL

vi. Movable/Immovable assetdeclaration

That AFO 20 of 2000 requires that any acquisition ofproperty must be reported and that he believes noteven 10 cases exist wherein purchase has beenreported. He insists that CPIO should give an affidavitclarifying whether or not they have records. Hecontends that CPIO’s claim of information pertainingto one officer and spread over 46 stations is false ashe himself has handled these files while posted atWC and that the approving authority is WC and thatthere is only one file for all stations.

vii. Officer’sResidence

Appellant quoted several precedents to argue thatthese residences will be dysfunctional if governmentwithdraws its land, funds etc. and on similarparameters the precedents have declared Air ForceSports Complex as public authority, JLM Fund aspublic authority.

Page 19: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

19

viii. President ServiceInstitute

They take contributions from Air Warriors who paymonthly subscription, governing rules made by AirHQ, money/funds spent as per the whims andfancies of AOC, source of funds are URC profits andcontribution, fund are misused for various purposesat the AOC residence.If all this involves non-public funds, then why arepeople in uniform working therein.

ix. Unit RunCanteen/Canteen StoresDepartment

That it is fully under the control of Air Force as fordrawing items from CSD request form has to besigned by the AOC, similarly land on which itfunctions, the amenities attached therein, salary ofemployees, everything is under the control of AirForce, even entry into URCs is also fully controlled.

x. CPIO/APIO/PIO/FAA of some ofthe offices

He stated that he sought for this information tospecifically know if this information is available inpublic domain or not.

xi. AnnualCommander’sConference

That the expenditure is done from both public andnon-public funds yet no disclosure of the details ismade by the CPIOs and this reeks of corruption andmisappropriation of funds.

xii. Air Force Schools That the land belongs to Air Force, teachers areappointed by AF, rules made by AF, AOC is thechairman, OIC of the school has to clear all bills fromAir HQ, accommodation of the teachers & staffprovided in Air Force Areas, thus allowing civilians tostay in highly sensitive AF lands & quarters, theydon’t take subsidy from government so as to evadethe status of Public Authority.

xiii. Farewell Parties That the expenditure is done from both public andnon-public funds yet no disclosure of the details ismade by the CPIOs and this reeks of corruption andmisappropriation of funds.

xiv. Income &Expenditure ofvarious NPFs

NIL

Page 20: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

20

It is pertinent to note that the Appellant attended only 5 of the 11 scheduledhearings, without intimating any reasons thereof despite being providedfacility of Video Conferencing. The Appellant in addition to the specific subjectwise contentions brought on record some general issues during the first fivehearings. These submissions are summarised in the following paras:

A. Appellant’s primary reservation was against the application of Section7(9) of the RTI Act by the CPIOs claiming that RTI Act does not allow fordenial of information under the said Section. It is insisted that most ofthe information he has sought pertain to singular files or single source ofinformation. For instance, the policies he has sought although is formultiple establishments of Air Force, but there is only one policy,similarly, his question regarding how much money has been spent fromNon-Public Funds remains same in almost all the RTI Applications whichmeans there are only particular files held with particular office whererecords of expenditure is available. Further, for instance he says thatinformation regarding purchase of movable/immovable assets isavailable in the personal files of officials which is not difficult to access,and that it is true that recommendations on purchase initiate fromdifferent Air Force Stations yet the approving authority is solely WAC,and that too, it consists of one file for each station and WAC has almost50,000 Air warriors, and at the most 50 people are required to collectsuch information who in turn would need only two hours for collatingthe same.

B. It is in this background, he contends that Section 7(9) is not at all a validreason for the CPIO to evade providing the information. Since,information is not as scattered as it is made to appear, same can beeasily provided. Yet the CPIOs are refraining from disclosure owing tothe deep rooted corrupt practices involved in the execution of fundsraised from the non-public fund ventures.

C. As an instance, he states that he is confident that there will not be even10 cases where officers have asked for permission as per AFO ordersprior to buying/possessing movable/immovable properties.

Page 21: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

21

D. Appellant relied on Section 189 to 191 of Air Force Act, 1950 to statethat Regulations for the Air Force, 1964 are statutory and further whilerelying on Rule 19 of Air Force Rules, 1969 he claimed that no permissionis taken to become the member of Officers Mess and SNCO’s mess andthat Indian Air Publication made by Air HQ is in force to regulate non-public funds which includes SNCOs/PSI etc. He submits that PSI/SNCOsetc. have statutory backing as they are brought by an Act of Parliamentand as per rules combatants/officers automatically become member ofthese ventures, which is why these Messes are not private organisations,as for becoming a member of private organisation, sanction of CentralGovernment is required as per Air Force Rules.

Note: This particular contention of the Appellant was clarified by the CPIO bysubmitting the extract of these referred rules and stating that only Air ForceAct, 1950 and Air Force Rules, 1969 are statutory and not the regulations forthe Air Force, 1964 as these regulations were not published in the Gazette andas such could not said to have been framed under Section 190 of AF Act, 1950.It was also stated that a plain reading of Rule 19 makes it clear that sanctionunder Rule 19 is not required for any organisation that is recognised as part ofArmed Forces. As the messes are a part of armed forces, permission is notrequired for becoming its member. Further, Para 1522 & 1548 of theRegulation for the Air Force provides that the officers and the SNCOs who areon the posted strength of the Station are the permanent members of theofficer’s/SNCO’s mess of that station, Accordingly, no sanction is required to bethe members of these messes.

E. Appellant submitted that by seeking such multitude of information heaims to bring in transparency and accountability to the functioning ofthese ventures since it involves fiscal resources raised out of fees andsubscriptions of the combatants/officers and in effect it is public money.He urges the CPIOs to clarify to him as to in what way they want him toframe his RTI Application so that they do not have to deny informationunder Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

F. He has relied on the CIC order in CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 dated06.01.2009 to justify his decision to file multiple RTI Applications withdifferent Air Force Stations.

Page 22: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

22

G. He further relied on certain CIC judgments like CIC/LS/C/2011/001107 &CIC/LS/A/2011/001848 (Lt. Gen. S.S Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. MoD);CIC/LS/A/2013/000543 (Lt. Col. R. Bansal); CIC/OK/C/2007/00040 (B.R.Manhas Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund) wherein Air Force SportsComplex, Army Welfare Housing Complex and Jawahar Nehru MemorialFund were decided to be as Public Authorities, respectively. Heemphasised as to how the parameters for these authorities and the Non-Public Fund ventures claimed by the CPIO have to be looked at from thesame perspective, and seeks that these ventures should also comeunder the definition of Public Authorities as per Section 2(h) of the RTIAct.

H. Appellant also relied on Supreme Courts’s ratio decidendi in the case ofAjay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi on what are the ‘’otherauthorities’’ contemplated in the definition of State in Article 12 of theConstitution of India.

I. In furtherance of his contentions, he stated that in two other mattersheard by the Commission in File Nos. CIC/VS/A/2015/002773/AB dated11.11.2016 and CIC/RM/A/2014/001324/AB dated 28.07.2016 againstone of the same set of Respondents, the CPIO was directed to file anaffidavit declaring that relevant records are not available. In the presentmatters, Appellant wanted the CPIOs to be similarly directed for filingaffidavits if information is claimed to be not available.

J. Appellant strongly denounced the conduct of the First AppellateAuthority of HQ WAC, in not having passed even a single order on hisFirst Appeals.

K. In response to the averments of the CPIOs regarding similar subjectmatters having been heard and decided by the Commission on a bunchof Appeals on 19.11.2015, Appellant asserted that some of theirsubmissions in those matters were factually wrong regarding havingprovided information on some of the initial RTI Applications.

L. It was also his contention that he has been constrained to file so manyRTI Application with one CPIO, as there are only so many CPIOs in theIndian Air Force and additionally it is the fault of the CPIOs in not havingtransferred the RTI Application to appropriate authorities, leaving theseRTI Applications to clog the functioning of the public authority.

Page 23: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

23

7.2 Respondent’s submissions:

Commission initially heard some of the Appeals, Command wise andsubsequently, altered the procedure by listing all the Appeals pertaining to anyCommand together based on each subject matter. Accordingly, CPIO, Air HQsand CPIO, HQ WAC represented all the Command CPIOs alongwith writtensubmissions. The submissions of the CPIOs during all the hearings aretherefore put together as under:

A. It is submitted that the Appellant proceeded on premature retirementfrom the service w.e.f 31.05.2013 and during his posting at 5 BRD(Sulur)he was diagnosed as a case of ‘Generalised Anxiety Disorder’ for whichhe was under treatment since the year 2007. While posted at 5 BRD(Sulur), Appellant had submitted numerous applications highlighting anincident which he has himself brought out in various applications,involving him in allegedly making offensive comments against officiatingSAO of 5 BRD, subsequent to this incident, he has been filing variousapplications and almost 359 Redressal of Grievances (ROGs) allegingcorruption against his superiors. It was after proceeding on prematureretirement, he started filing RTI Applications with a vindictive attitude,as most of these RTI Applications are vexatious and repetitive in nature.

B. It is submitted that the Appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of hisperceived grievances as all his ROGs and other applications filed againstthe functioning of the Station Administration of the units where he wasposted as well as the senior authorities were found to be devoid ofmerit.

C. It is submitted that initially in respect of 137 RTI Applications, theinformation was provided by CPIO, WAC and some of these RTIApplications were transferred to CPIO, MC and other public authorities.After responding to almost 137 RTI Applications, when Appellant startedfiling RTI Applications in bulk which ranged from 50 to 100 at a time, hewas replied that, disclosure of information was not feasible as it woulddisproportionately divert the resources of the public authorities as perSection 7(9) of the RTI Act. It is also contended that appellant’s one RTIApplication was equivalent to 10 to 20 RTI Applications as eachapplication sought numerous details.

Page 24: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

24

D. It is submitted that the Appellant has put up approximately 6443 RTIApplications to various CPIOs of Indian Air Force and correspondingnumber of First Appeals and Second Appeals. The Appellant hassubmitted so many RTI Applications that he himself has lost count due tothe repetitiveness.

E. It is submitted that a total of 3588 Second Appeals were disposed earlierby CIC on 19.11.2015 which pertained to information sought of similarnature, and the CIC while allowing the Appeals had directed to providesome information. However, since the huge number of RTI Applicationswere extremely strenuous to process and were vexatious in nature, aWrit Petition was filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P (C)205/2017 for challenging the said CIC order. It follows that the Court hasgranted stay on the CIC order on 11.01.2017 based on their submissionsof repetitiveness and voluminous number of RTI Applications seekinginformation which is not even readily available and would have to becollated and tabulated thereby resulting in the CPIOs devoting all theirworking hours for dealing only with the RTI Applications of theAppellant.

F. It is submitted that in the intervening period from the date of the CICorder and the stay order, Appellant filed numerous RTI Applicationsagain all over Indian Air Force, and these cover subject matters primarilypertaining to income and expenditure of various forms of Non-PublicFunds on farewell parties, residences of officers, Air Force Schools,President Service Institute, SNCOs mess, Airmen Mess, DSC Mess,AFWWA, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, annual commanders conference,CSD/URC ventures; disposal of his personal applications seekingwithdrawal of Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) from some officers; census oftrees & wild animals; CPIO/FAA details of Air Force Stations and Non-Public Funds.

G. It is submitted that in each RTI Application, applicant has asked forvoluminous information which is not only cumbersome to compile butalso is a burden to the organization and the numerous details soughttherein were not readily available and compilation if attempted woulddisproportionately divert the resources of the organization, accordingly,information was denied under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further withregard to Non-Public ventures like AFWWA, PSI, Air Force Schools,CSD/URC, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, it is submitted that they do not fall

Page 25: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

25

under the definition of public authority as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.It is also asserted that it is an established fact that non-public funds arenot within the scope of the definition of ‘State’ as provided under Article12 of the Constitution of India and since NPFs do not fall within thepurview of RTI Act, applications mentioned herein seeking suchinformation were rejected. As regards the disposal of his personalapplications, it is submitted that information as available with the publicauthority has been already provided and nothing further is available onrecord. It is also contended that particularly some batch of RTIApplications falling under the subject matters of Census of Trees, WildAnimals, Annual Commanders Conference, CPIO/PIO/FAA of Air ForceStations and NPF ventures seek information spanning over 20 years,compilation of which will invariably render the office dysfunctional.

H. An earlier order of the CIC has been relied on in File Nos.CIC/AT/A/2008/00097, CIC/AT/A/2008/000116 andCIC/AT/A/2008/000125 dated 12.06.2008 wherein it was held that

“...The Commission agrees that given the nature and tenor of thequeries of the appellant these are clearly vexatious and frivolous, allaimed at making the respondents work overtime to furnish informationto the appellant within the time-limit prescribed under the Act.Commission also agrees that answering this type of elaborate anddetailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic andtherefore needed repeated scrutiny, imposes heavy cost on the publicauthority and tends to divert its resources. This brings it within the scopeof Section 7(9) of the RTI Act...”

I. Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation in Central Board of Sec. Education& Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors has been also relied upon to theeffect that “Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directionsunder RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated totransparency and accountability in the functioning of public authoritiesand eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it willadversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in theexecutive getting bogged down with the non-productive work ofcollecting and furnishing information” and further that “The nation doesnot want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicantsinstead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under

Page 26: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

26

the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act shouldnot lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `informationfurnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.’’

J. It is also submitted that Appellant has sought vast informationpertaining to many spheres and facets of IAF. Some information whichalthough appears innocuous in isolation but collation and compilation ofthe same could form critical information pertaining to IAF which isdetrimental to IAF/national security and therefore same has beendenied under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

K. It is prayed that the Appeals be dismissed with heavy cost on theAppellant as the Appellant has been harnessing a vindictive approachtowards the public authority and is causing unnecessary stress on theadministrative machinery and hampering operational efficiency. Anunreasonable demand of an individual on the resources of the State topursue his own whims does not serve the requirements of democracy.

L. In particular response to some of the Appellant’s averments, it wasargued that they differ from the opinion of the Appellant that his RTIApplications seek almost similar data for different NPF ventures, it willnot be a herculean task as much as it is claimed. In the CPIO’s opinion,not one RTI Application or Appeal can be taken in isolation whilstproviding the information as there are multiple number of querieswithin one query and almost every RTI Application has more than 5queries and they pertain to different records as is evident from thequeries of the RTI Applications. As such, if information were to becollected and collated, it would have meant for the CPIO to leave hisprimary work profile.

8. COMMISSION’s FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS

Based on the facts on record and averments of both the parties, following isdeduced:

8.1.1 There are two versions to the basic crux of these Appeals, one of theAppellant who claims it is for venting the corrupt practices within the AirForce Establishments and to bring in transparency in the several AirForce ventures discussed above. The second is of the Respondents, who

Page 27: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

27

claim that these RTI Applications arise out of Appellant’s vindictiveintent, meant only to harass the public authority for perceived injusticemeted out to him while in service.

8.1.2 A perusal of the content of the RTI Applications reflect more on thecumbersome way of framing these in having sought for ten kinds ofinformation within a single query. The RTI Applications lack specifics andare framed in a question answer format in most places, providinginformation on which may practically require dwelling into records andascertaining facts and figures, then collating it.

8.1.3 For instance, some of the RTI Application queries are reproduced hereverbatim, in respect of CHAF(B), TC, IAF:

“(a) Who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO from 01 Jan 2007 to 10 Sep 2014

& also for PSI, AFWWA(L), CSD Canteen, AOC/CO Contingency Fund,Offrs. Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency & CWF?

(b) What are their addresses, telephone No., Fax No., email-ids? Who arethe approving authorities for their appointment along with policies &file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they handover their charges? Please provide copies of handing /taking overregisters & SRO/URO entries. If they did not handover their charges,what action was taken against them?

(c) Where have they published their details, as required by RTI Act, 2005,on IAF website? If they have not done so, what action has beeninitiated against them? How many RTI Applications have beenreceived & how many were not replied in time? Who were the officersresponsible for this & what action has been taken against them?

(d) How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI Cells? Are thecombatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay?Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are theypaid minimum wages as per govt. law?

(e) How many appeals have been disposed off to the satisfaction ofapplicants>

(f) Any other relevant information(g) File notings of progress of this RTI.”

In respect of HQ WAC:

Page 28: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

28

“a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Ambala from 01 Jan1996 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct oftheir farewell parties? How much expenditure was from Public Funds &Non Public Funds? How much was the expenditure from officers, SNCOs& Airmen? What were the venues for these parties?

b. Who was the AOC/CO who attended these parties? Did his wife alsoattend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, hername & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? Onwhat authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing withpublic servants? Did she or ACO/CO receive any gifts in these parties? Ifyes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts?

c. How much money has been spent on these parties from public/non-public funds, from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014, along with policies & filenotings. Who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of thesepublic/non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details &file notings?

d. How many parties were organised by takingmoney/manpower/crockery etc. from NPFs, whether this is permitted byany Act of Parliament/Law? How many combatants/civilians wereworking there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium &civilians any pay? Who decided that? Who issues Form 16 to theseemployees?

e.Any other relevant information.

f.File notings of progress of this RTI.”

In respect of HQ, MC:“a. AOC/CO residence of 5 BRD is built on which land? Whether it is

private land or Govt./IAF land? How much is the area of this land? Ifthis is govt. Land, how much money did it pay to govt tobuy/lease/annual rent?

b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/newconstruction of AOC/CO residence from public/nom public funds, from01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the

Page 29: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

29

approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non publicfunds, whether govt officers or private?

c. Who has been the AOC/CO for the last three years? Whether AOC/COis a public authority as per section 2(h) of RTI Act? Whether AOC/CO,a public authority, is authorized to accept gifts,donations/articles/loans from NPFs? How many such items are there?Who approves that alongwith authority, policy & file notings? Howmany such items are there? Who approves that along with authority,policy & file notings? How many Air Conditioners are fitted there,personal & official? How much was the electricity bill from 01 Jan 11to 31 Jul 14? Who were the officers responsible to accept items fromNPFs 7 what action has been taken against them?

d. How many parties have been organized at AOC/CO (a publicauthority) residence by taking money/manpower/crockery etc fromthese NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act ofParliament/law? How many combatant/civilians are working here?Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians anypay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees?

e. If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt., will the AOC/CO residenceexist?

f. Any other relevant information.g. File notings on progress of this RTI.”

8.1.4 At this point, it will be relevant to bring out the broad areas ofinformation sought in the RTI Applications which were covered by theCIC order dated 19.11.2015 referred hereinabove, para 18 of the saidorder reads as under:

“…18. Broadly, the information sought by the appellantmay be divided into the following categories:−

(a) regarding various applications concerning the appellant, which werefiled when he was in service. These applications can further be dividedinto the following sub− categories:−

(i) redressal of grievance applications and other representations andsubsequent reminders;(ii) applications against various higher authorities alleging corruptionand misuse of their power and position and subsequent reminders;

Page 30: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

30

(iii) applications seeking interviews with higher authorities andhis subsequent reminders;(iv) applications seeking permissions for filing FIR and court case in theAFT and subsequent reminders;(v) applications seeking protection of life from some officers in the IAFand taking action against them and subsequent reminders;(vi) applications seeking information regarding his appraisal reports andsubsequent reminders;(vii) applications requesting withdrawal of VSM from certain officers ofthe IAF and subsequent reminders;(viii) applications questioning the professional competence of an officerin the IAF and subsequent reminders;(ix) applications requesting for taking disciplinary action against officersof the IAF;(x) applications requesting for holding Court of Inquiry about anincident on 07.11.2008 between the appellant and an officer of the IAFand subsequent reminders; and(xi) applications intimating about anti−IAF ac vity at a par cularstation and subsequent reminders.

(b) regarding non public fund ventures run by IAF. These applicationscan further be divided into various sub−categories of informa onpertaining to:

(i) Officers Mess;(ii) Senior Non−commissioned Officers (SNCO) Mess;(iii) AF Wives Welfare Associations;(iv) Canteen Stores Department (CSD);(v) President Service Institute;(vi) AOC/Cos Contingency Fund;(vii) AF Gas agency;(viii) AF Schools;(ix) AF Sports Complex, Race Course;(x) AF Museum;(xi) AF Naval Housing Board;(xii) AF Auditorium;(xiii) Centre for Air Power Studies;(xiv) AF Group Insurance Society;(xv) AF Benevolent Association;(xvi) AF Association; and

Page 31: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

31

(xvii) AF Central Welfare Fund.

(c) regarding other miscellaneous applications….”

8.1.5 Further, para 16 of the same order lists a summary of Appellant’ssubmissions, a part of which is as under:

‘’…(xii) that some of the CPIOs of the IAF denied the information soughtpertaining to Non Public Fund (NPF) ventures stating that such entities werenot 'public authority' in terms of section 2(h) of the Act. Some CPIOsdenied the information by quoting section 7(9) of the Act and someunder both the sections, i.e., 2(h) and 7(9) of the Act;(xiii) that the NPF entities are also public authorities as they are controlled bythe Air Force officers;(xiv) that many of the RTI applications belong to the same type ofrepresentations and, broadly categorized, were regarding:−(a) misbehaviour by certain officers of the IAF;(b) corruption and misuse of money by some officers of the IAF;(c) income and expenditure of messes in the IAF;(d) expenditure and operation of the AOC/CO contingency fund and Non−PublicFunds;(e) seeking interview with senior officers of the IAF;(f) seeking permission to approach Armed Forces Tribunal;(g) functioning of some institutes/organizations/ ventures of the IAF; and(h) cutting of trees, killing of wildlife birds without obtaining permission of theconcerned departments;(xv) that some senior officers host lavish personal gatherings out of thecontingency fund of the IAF; ….”

8.1.6 A composite reading of the above two paras and the subject mattersalongwith a brief study of the information sought in the RTI Applicationsreferred in the present matter, it is beyond any reasonable doubt thatthe subject matters raised herein have already been heard and decidedby the Commission which largely makes the present Appeal devoid ofany such merit which may warrant separate hearings or dwelling intoeach and every RTI Application.

8.1.7 Even further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) 205/2017 dated11.01.2017 has stayed the operation of the directions given by theCommission in the order dated 19.11.2015. It follows then that there

Page 32: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

32

cannot be any separate line of adjudication on the similar set of Appealstill the matter has been finally decided by the Hon’ble High Court.

8.1.8 Yet, Commission deems it appropriate to peruse the matters at handwith the perspective of looking at its limited merit in terms of whetheror not Appellant is justified in taking recourse to the channel of RTI Actin this particular manner and as to how the Respondents have dealt withthe provisions of the RTI Act.

8.1.9 It was also observed from the course of several hearings that there is noapparent malafide intent in the conduct of the CPIOs while claiminginformation cannot be provided. CPIOs had expressed their support forproviding whatever was possible and available if the Appellant had beenatleast specific or had limited the subject matters. CPIO, WAC in one ofthe hearings even agreed to provide inspection of relevant recordswhere Appellant can specify a particular subject. The basic argumentbeing, there is nothing that CPIOs are intending to deliberately hide orevade from.

8.1.10 It may also be noted that a coordinate bench of the Commission hasalready heard and decided around 550 number of Appeals on31.03.2017 on the same subject matters and set of RTI Applications.

9. Commission’s Analysis of the Respondents conduct in dealing with themultitude of RTI Applications:

9.1.1 CPIO, WAC has not responded on almost 10 set of RTI Applications filedon different dates, while for the remaining RTI Applications, largelySection 7(9) has been quoted and for specific ventures, Section 2(h) hasbeen relied on.

9.1.2 CPIO, EAC has responded on all RTI Applications except one set of these.The replies vary from denying information on grounds of subject matterbeing outside 2(h) of the RTI Act or not provided the information citingSection 7(9) of the RTI Act. In some cases, the India Postal Orders (IPOs)have been returned by the CPIO, stating that reply has been alreadyprovided on similar RTI Applications or in case where information soughtpertains to Non-Public Funds.

Page 33: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

33

9.1.3 CPIO,MC has responded on all the RTI Applications and has eitherclaimed Section 2(h) or Section 7(9) and in some instances, both.

9.1.4 CPIO, SWAC has not responded on RTI Applications of almost 5 differentdates, for the remaining, Section 2(h) and Section 7(9) has been claimedsimultaneously as well as interchangeably.

9.1.5 CPIO, TC has provided responses on all the RTI Applications denying allthe information as being outside Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In particularresponse to income and expenditure sought of various Non-PublicFunds, CPIO, has claimed Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act to deny theinformation.

9.1.6 CPIO, CAC has responded on only 3 set of RTI Applications and noresponse has been provided on the remaining set of RTI Applications.

9.1.7 CPIO, SAC has responded on all the RTI Applications and has evenprovided appropriate information on the subject matters ofCommander’s Conference and residence of officers. While forinformation pertaining to Farewell Parties, information has been deniedunder Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On the remaining RTI Applications,Section 2(h) & Section 7(9) have been liberally quoted to state thatinformation cannot be provided.

10. Analysis of Appellants RTI Application(s):

In addition to the few observations made already regarding the cumbersomenature of most of the RTI Applications, it shall also be brought on record that ina number of RTI Applications, Appellant has even sought for information in theform of clarifications, speculations, which may require the CPIO to deducereplies after elaborate research.

While some of the queries are extremely mundane in nature like asking for thenumber of crockery or asking if the wives of Senior officers accept gifts etc.,what kind of gifts etc. For instance, one of the queries read- “Who was theAOC/CO who attended these parties? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, thenwhat was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she aprivate citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed toattend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or ACO/CO receive

Page 34: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

34

any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source ofthese gifts?”

DECISION

A comprehensive reading of the foregoing excerpts, analysis and submissionsof both the parties, do not leave much to interpret for the Commission asregards the maintainability of these Appeals. Yet, there a few points that shallbe noted by the Respondents:

I. When the RTI Applications are taken in its entirety, the claim of Section7(9) of the RTI Act by the CPIOs for not being able to provide theinformation holds good. However, RTI Applications where singularinformation was sought, for instance, the income and expenditure ofNon-Public Funds in most of the set of RTI Applications is a single query,similarly, disposal of Appellant’s personal applications, do not warrantinvoking Section 7(9), as, if they were taken individually, these RTIApplications could have been responded to with the information as peravailability.

II. CPIO, CAC and CPIO, SAC have largely violated the provisions of RTI Actby not responding to a number of RTI Applications and no particularreasons have been provided for this lapse.

III. CPIO, SAC has attempted to reply on most of the queries as per theavailability of information and the same is in consonance with theprovisions of the RTI Act.

IV. Now coming to the Appellant’s basic premise for filing these Appeals,which is praying that the non-public fund ventures should be declared aspublic authorities, it may be noted that in the instant matters, thisquestion does not arise for adjudication before the Commission in asmuch as the RTI Applications have been filed with public authorities andnot with these Non-Public Fund ventures directly. It follows then thatthe Respondents have erred in relying on Section 2(h) of the RTI Act andin this context, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j)and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:

Page 35: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

35

Section 2(j)- “....“right to information” means the right to informationaccessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of anypublic authority and includes the right to—...........”

Section 2(f)- “....“information” means any material in any form, includingrecords, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,data material held in any electronic form and information relating to anyprivate body which can be accessed by a public authority under any otherlaw for the time being in force...”

When the said two Sections are read together it becomes essentiallyclear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in thespirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasisedtherefore that even if hypothetically the Respondents claim of thesenon-public fund ventures not being a public authority is conceded with,fact remains that the Appellant has sought information from a publicauthority and not from said ventures, therefore the contention of theRespondents that NPFs are not public authorities will not apply to themerits of this case. Accordingly, the appropriate recourse for theRespondents would be to provide such information which is availablewith them or which they can access from these ventures. Alternatively,where information is not available/cannot be accessed, a categoricalreply should be made to that effect while replying on the RTIApplication.

V. Commission sparingly acknowledges that this is an attempt on theAppellant’s part to fight corruption within the IAF, and based on thefacts on record, the Respondent’s submissions also find equalconsideration. On the hindsight, however noble the end of thisvociferous attempt of bringing about probity in the functioning of IAFwould have been, fact remains that the means adopted by theAppellant regrettably speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit ofthe RTI Act.

VI. RTI Act is a powerful tool in the hands of the informed citizenry, and ithas to be utilised while keeping in mind the balance between theapplicability of different provisions therein. These provisions whileallowing maximum disclosure, has also limited the access to informationunder Sections like 8 & 9 of the RTI Act and other Sections like 2(f), 2(h),

Page 36: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

36

7(9) for such interpretation, which does not obliterate the primarypurpose of the Act.

VII. As much as the CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with theprovisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicants to nottransgress the spirit of the RTI Act and resort to clogging the functioningof the public authority by filing mundane RTI Applications merelyclaiming that it is intrinsic to fighting corruption. Appellant is a learnedadvocate apart from being an ex-serviceman, such recourse to RTI Act isperhaps more of an abuse of the process of law.

VIII. It would have been cogent for the Appellant to have filed RTIApplications systematically in a structured manner i.e with specificrequests bringing them clearly within the definition of Section 2(f) of theRTI Act, which would have avoided the apparent relentless prejudicedone to valuable resources of time, money and paper.

IX. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea ofexercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not onlystand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in theRTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised bysuperior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble SupremeCourt's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) &anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:

"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information andright to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands ofresponsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency andaccountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly andall efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary informationunder clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securingtransparency and accountability in the working of public authorities andin discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that isinformation other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of theAct), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests(like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciaryrelationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminateand impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of alland sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in

Page 37: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

37

the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) wouldbe counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of theadministration and result in the executive getting bogged down with thenon- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. TheAct should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool toobstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy thepeace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it beconverted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officialsstriving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75%of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collectingand furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging theirregular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressureof the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of apublic authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of theirnormal and regular duties."

Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'bleSupreme Court has held that:-

"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction inregard to information intended to bring transparency, to improveaccountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing onaccountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities underthe RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that whileachieving transparency, the demand for information does not reachunmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which includeefficient operation of public authorities and the Government,preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum useof limited fiscal resources."

In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (NorthWest - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi hasheld that:

"8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information isnot required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of thelaw is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authoritiescreated under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the

Page 38: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

38

provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stopthereto."

A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matterby referring to the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C)845/2014] wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:

"...In the opinion of this Court, the primary duty of the officials ofMinistry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Ifthe limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, DefenceEstates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address suchmeaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office ofthe Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would cometo stand still."

"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to beappropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith andconfidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made atool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."

X. Appellant’s assertive submission during the first few hearings addedsome perspective to his Appeals however his absence from all of thesubsequent hearings without any intimation, despite being given propervideo conferencing facility, is not understood. Commission is fully awareof the fact that, it is not mandatory for Appellants to attend the hearingof Second Appeals, yet presence of Appellants during hearings offer aconsiderable role in shaping appropriate adjudication on the factspresented before it.

XI. It is also important to highlight that at no particular stage during thependency of these Appeals did it appear that the Respondents haveadopted deliberate tactics for not parting with the information sought. Itwill suffice to say that looking at the amplitude of queries and number ofRTI Applications, Commission itself feels constrained to not order anyrelief, as at this stage, limiting the information sought appears neitherconducive nor providing inspection seems feasible, to circumvent theprima-facie legitimate application of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act in theinstant Appeals.

With the foregoing observations, Commission dismisses the Appeals.

Page 39: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

39

ADVISORY

Commission is of the opinion that the kind of time and resources spent bythe Appellant in filing these RTI Applications and Appeals do speak of certainkind of accountability which appears to be lacking in the IAF. The lack ofsufficient number of CPIOs/APIOs in one of the three largest wings ofMinistry of Defence raises a serious concern regarding the kind of importancethat is accorded to the RTI Act provisions. Further, the dismal rate ofdisposing First Appeals by the concerned FAAs of Western Air Command andCentral Air Command, as evident from the chronology at para 3 above isalarming. In this context, the following steps appear rudimentary:

The number of CPIOs and APIOs should be increased in all Commandsand there should be atleast 1 CPIO and 1 APIO at every unit or stationlevel.

It should be incumbent on the controlling officers to conductappropriate workshops and sensitisation programmes for the CPIOsand FAAs regarding the various provisions of the RTI Act.

As is evident from the issue at hand that the crux for filing of these RTIApplications has been the lack of transparency in the operation andexecution of the activities of Non-Public Fund ventures. A consideredattempt should be made to bring such information which affects thefees and subscriptions deposited by the members of IAF fraternity inpublic domain, so that the paraphernalia around the probable misuseof such funds is not attributed to deliberate and malafide tactics.

There is no doubt that establishments where funds are raised frommember contributions remain at the risk of misappropriations andunaccountability. Therefore, it is in the best of interests that thereshould be maximum disclosure and minimum restraint on non-disclosure of the working and management of these NPFs.

A copy of this order is marked to the Chief of Air Staff and the DefenceSecretary to take note of the observations made above as well forappropriate action as may be deemed fit for translating the abovesaidadvisory into effective implementation.

Page 40: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

40

(Divya Prakash Sinha)Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy

(H P Sen)Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer

Copy to:

Chief of Air StaffAir Headquarters,Vayu Bhawan,Rafi Marg New Delhi – 110106--(For taking note of the observations and advisory stated above in the order)

Defence SecretaryMinistry of Defence101-A, South Block, New Delhi--(For taking note of the observations & advisory stated above in the order)

Page 41: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

41

ANNEXURE-1(1)Date of Hearing- 25/11/2016

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2015/004661/SD 23.06.20162. CIC/CC/A/2015/004670/SD 23.06.20163. CIC/CC/A/2015/004667/SD 23.06.20164. CIC/CC/A/2015/004659/SD 23.06.20165. CIC/CC/A/2015/004629/SD 23.06.20166. CIC/CC/A/2015/004722/SD 23.06.20167. CIC/CC/A/2015/004711/SD 23.06.20168. CIC/CC/A/2015/004709/SD 23.06.20169. CIC/CC/A/2015/004539/SD 23.06.201610. CIC/CC/A/2015/004554/SD 23.06.201611. CIC/CC/A/2015/004626/SD 23.06.201612. CIC/CC/A/2015/004719/SD 23.06.201613. CIC/CC/A/2015/004541/SD 23.06.201614. CIC/CC/A/2015/004660/SD 23.06.201615. CIC/CC/A/2015/004712/SD 23.06.201616. CIC/CC/A/2015/004717/SD 23.06.201617. CIC/CC/A/2015/004714/SD 23.06.201618. CIC/CC/A/2015/004621/SD 23.06.201619. CIC/CC/A/2015/004556/SD 23.06.201620. CIC/CC/A/2015/004594/SD 23.06.201621. CIC/CC/A/2014/001254/SD 27.01.201422. CIC/CC/A/2014/000891/SD 27.01.201423. CIC/CC/A/2014/000940/SD 27.01.201424. CIC/CC/A/2014/002268/SD 01.08.201425. CIC/CC/A/2014/002296/SD 01.08.201426. CIC/CC/A/2014/002267/SD 01.08.201427. CIC/CC/A/2014/002264/SD 01.08.201428. CIC/CC/A/2014/001862/SD 01.08.201429. CIC/CC/A/2014/001851/SD 01.08.201430. CIC/CC/A/2014/001823/SD 01.08.201431. CIC/CC/A/2014/001804/SD 01.08.201432. CIC/CC/A/2014/002026/SD 01.08.201433. CIC/CC/A/2015/000802/SD 14.08.201434. CIC/CC/A/2015/000803/SD 14.08.201435. CIC/CC/A/2015/000804/SD 14.08.201436. CIC/RM/A/2014/002141/SD 30.01.201437. CIC/RM/A/2014/002270/SD 30.01.201438. CIC/CC/A/2014/002141/SD 02.07.201439. CIC/CC/A/2014/001811/SD 08.08.2014

Page 42: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

42

ANNEXURE-1(2)Date of Hearing- 16/12/2016

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/VS/A/2015/003189/SD 29.06.20152. CIC/VS/A/2015/003188/SD 29.06.20153. CIC/VS/A/2015/003190/SD 29.06.20154. CIC/VS/A/2015/003196/SD 29.06.20155. CIC/VS/A/2015/003177/SD 29.06.20156. CIC/VS/A/2015/003195/SD 29.06.20157. CIC/VS/A/2015/003173/SD 29.06.20158. CIC/VS/A/2015/003172/SD 29.06.20159. CIC/VS/A/2015/003169/SD 29.06.201510. CIC/VS/A/2015/003191/SD 29.06.201511. CIC/VS/A/2015/002236/SD 29.06.201512. CIC/VS/A/2015/002325/SD 29.06.201513. CIC/VS/A/2015/002330/SD 29.06.201514. CIC/VS/A/2015/002230/SD 29.06.201515. CIC/VS/A/2015/002234/SD 29.06.201516. CIC/VS/A/2015/002231/SD 29.06.201517. CIC/VS/A/2015/002239/SD 29.06.201518. CIC/VS/A/2015/002237/SD 29.06.201519. CIC/VS/A/2015/002235/SD 29.06.201520. CIC/VS/A/2015/002233/SD 29.06.201521. CIC/VS/A/2015/002227/SD 29.06.201522. CIC/VS/A/2015/002241/SD 29.06.201523. CIC/VS/A/2015/002320/SD 29.06.201524. CIC/VS/A/2015/002322/SD 29.06.201525. CIC/VS/A/2015/002318/SD 29.06.201526. CIC/VS/A/2015/002331/SD 29.06.201527. CIC/VS/A/2015/002302/SD 29.06.201528. CIC/VS/A/2015/002303/SD 29.06.201529. CIC/CC/A/2015/004687/SD 23.06.201530. CIC/CC/A/2015/004573/SD 23.06.201531. CIC/CC/A/2015/004691/SD 23.06.201532. CIC/CC/A/2015/004686/SD 23.06.201533. CIC/CC/A/2015/004571/SD 23.06.201534. CIC/CC/A/2015/004558/SD 23.06.201535. CIC/CC/A/2015/004559/SD 23.06.201536. CIC/CC/A/2015/004526/SD 23.06.201537. CIC/CC/A/2015/004561/SD 23.06.201538. CIC/CC/A/2015/004696/SD 23.06.201539. CIC/CC/A/2015/004529/SD 23.06.201540. CIC/CC/A/2015/004528/SD 23.06.201541. CIC/CC/A/2015/004688/SD 23.06.201542. CIC/CC/A/2015/004565/SD 23.06.201543. CIC/CC/A/2015/004698/SD 23.06.201544. CIC/CC/A/2015/004690/SD 23.06.201545. CIC/CC/A/2015/004673/SD 23.06.201546. CIC/CC/A/2015/004685/SD 23.06.201547. CIC/CC/A/2015/004782/SD 23.06.2015

Page 43: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

43

48. CIC/CC/A/2015/004527/SD 23.06.201549. CIC/CC/A/2015/004531/SD 23.06.201550. CIC/CC/A/2015/004581/SD 23.06.201551. CIC/CC/A/2015/004575/SD 23.06.201552. CIC/CC/A/2015/004783/SD 23.06.201553. CIC/CC/A/2015/004680/SD 23.06.201554. CIC/CC/A/2015/004679/SD 23.06.201555. CIC/CC/A/2015/004672/SD 23.06.201556. CIC/CC/A/2015/004784/SD 23.06.201557. CIC/CC/A/2015/004694/SD 23.06.201558. CIC/CC/A/2015/004637/SD 23.06.201559. CIC/CC/A/2015/004684/SD 23.06.201560. CIC/CC/A/2015/004683/SD 23.06.201561. CIC/CC/A/2015/004682/SD 23.06.201562. CIC/CC/A/2015/004563/SD 23.06.201563. CIC/CC/A/2015/004627/SD 23.06.201564. CIC/CC/A/2015/004628/SD 23.06.201565. CIC/CC/A/2015/004625/SD 23.06.201566. CIC/VS/A/2015/002274/SD 23.06.201567. CIC/VS/A/2015/002345/SD 25.05.201568. CIC/VS/A/2015/003167/SD 25.05.201569. CIC/VS/A/2015/003483/SD 25.05.201570. CIC/VS/A/2015/003481/SD 25.05.201571. CIC/VS/A/2015/003208/SD 25.05.201572. CIC/VS/A/2015/003207/SD 25.05.201573. CIC/VS/A/2015/003185/SD 25.05.2015

ANNEXURE-1(3)Date of Hearing- 20/12/2016

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2016/000914/SD 23.06.20152. CIC/CC/A/2016/000918/SD 23.06.20153. CIC/RK/A/2016/000262/SD 23.06.20154. CIC/RK/A/2016/000261/SD 23.06.20155. CIC/RK/A/2016/000293/SD 23.06.20156. CIC/RK/A/2016/000290/SD 23.06.20157. CIC/RK/A/2016/000294/SD 23.06.20158. CIC/VS/A/2015/002485/SD 25.04.20159. CIC/VS/A/2015/002423/SD 25.04.201510. CIC/VS/A/2015/002487/SD 25.04.201511. CIC/VS/A/2015/002389/SD 25.04.201512. CIC/VS/A/2015/002490/SD 25.04.201513. CIC/VS/A/2015/002492/SD 25.04.201514. CIC/VS/A/2015/002394/SD 25.04.201515. CIC/VS/A/2015/002703/SD 25.04.201616. CIC/VS/A/2015/002392/SD 25.04.2015

Page 44: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

44

17. CIC/VS/A/2015/002390/SD 25.04.201518. CIC/VS/A/2015/002574/SD 25.04.201519. CIC/VS/A/2015/002701/SD 25.04.201520. CIC/VS/A/2015/002395/SD 04.04.201521. CIC/VS/A/2015/002396/SD 04.04.201522. CIC/VS/A/2015/002709/SD 04.04.201523. CIC/VS/A/2015/002399/SD 04.04.201524. CIC/VS/A/2015/002884/SD 04.04.2015

ANNEXURE-1(4)Date of Hearing- 23/12/2016

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2015/003508/SD 21.09.20142. CIC/CC/A/2015/002423/SD 22.09.20143. CIC/RK/A/2016/000304/SD 23.06.20154. CIC/RK/A/2016/000307/SD 23.06.20155. CIC/RK/A/2016/000308/SD 23.06.20156. CIC/RK/A/2016/000302/SD 23.06.20157. CIC/RK/A/2016/000303/SD 23.06.20158. CIC/RK/A/2016/000312/SD 23.06.20159. CIC/RK/A/2016/000268/SD 23.06.201510. CIC/RK/A/2016/000269/SD 23.06.201511. CIC/RK/A/2016/000272/SD 23.06.201512. CIC/RK/A/2016/000274/SD 23.06.201513. CIC/RK/A/2016/000275/SD 23.06.201514. CIC/RK/A/2016/000277/SD 23.06.201515. CIC/RK/A/2016/000279/SD 23.06.201516. CIC/RK/A/2016/000280/SD 23.06.201517. CIC/RK/A/2016/000282/SD 23.06.201518. CIC/RK/A/2016/000283/SD 23.06.201519. CIC/RK/A/2016/000285/SD 23.06.201520. CIC/RK/A/2016/000287/SD 23.06.201521. CIC/CC/A/2016/000927/SD 23.06.201522. CIC/CC/A/2016/000929/SD 23.06.201523. CIC/RK/A/2016/000266/SD 23.06.201524. CIC/CC/A/2016/000921/SD 23.06.201525. CIC/CC/A/2016/000794/SD 23.06.201526. CIC/CC/A/2016/000792/SD 23.06.201527. CIC/CC/A/2016/000791/SD 23.06.201528. CIC/CC/A/2016/000790/SD 23.06.2015

Page 45: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

45

ANNEXURE-1(5)Date of Hearing- 05/01/2017

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2015/004600/SD 23.06.20152. CIC/CC/A/2015/004623/SD 23.06.20153. CIC/CC/A/2015/004620/SD 23.06.20154. CIC/CC/A/2015/004618/SD 23.06.20155. CIC/CC/A/2015/004619/SD 23.06.20156. CIC/CC/A/2015/004568/SD 23.06.20157. CIC/CC/A/2015/004590/SD 23.06.20158. CIC/CC/A/2015/004614/SD 23.06.20159. CIC/CC/A/2015/004616/SD 23.06.201510. CIC/CC/A/2015/004569/SD 23.06.201511. CIC/CC/A/2015/004617/SD 23.06.201512. CIC/CC/A/2015/000331/SD 04.09.201413. CIC/CC/A/2015/004676/SD 23.06.201514. CIC/CC/A/2015/004669/SD 23.06.201515. CIC/CC/A/2015/004668/SD 23.06.201516. CIC/CC/A/2015/001674/SD 04.09.201417. CIC/CC/A/2015/004624/SD 23.06.201518. CIC/CC/A/2015/004615/SD 23.06.201519. CIC/CC/A/2015/000340/SD 04.09.201420. CIC/CC/A/2015/004595/SD 23.06.201521. CIC/CC/A/2015/000339/SD 04.09.201422. CIC/CC/A/2015/004560/SD 23.06.201523. CIC/CC/A/2015/004551/SD 23.06.201524. CIC/CC/A/2015/001675/SD 04.09.201425. CIC/CC/A/2015/004549/SD 23.06.201526. CIC/CC/A/2015/004675/SD 23.06.201527. CIC/CC/A/2015/004674/SD 23.06.201528. CIC/CC/A/2015/004671/SD 23.06.2015

Date of Hearing- 12/01/2017ANNEXURE-1(6)

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/VS/A/2015/002275/SD 25.05.20152. CIC/VS/A/2015/002276/SD 25.05.20153. CIC/VS/A/2015/002277/SD 25.05.20154. CIC/VS/A/2015/002279/SD 25.05.20155. CIC/VS/A/2015/002280/SD 25.05.20156. CIC/VS/A/2015/002281/SD 25.05.20157. CIC/VS/A/2015/002282/SD 25.05.20158. CIC/VS/A/2015/002283/SD 25.05.20159. CIC/VS/A/2015/002284/SD 25.05.2015

Page 46: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

46

10. CIC/VS/A/2015/002285/SD 25.05.201511. CIC/VS/A/2015/002286/SD 25.05.201512. CIC/VS/A/2015/002287/SD 25.05.201513. CIC/VS/A/2015/002288/SD 25.05.201514. CIC/VS/A/2015/002289/SD 25.05.201515. CIC/VS/A/2015/002290/SD 25.05.201516. CIC/VS/A/2015/002278/SD 25.05.201517. CIC/VS/A/2015/002335/SD 25.05.201518. CIC/VS/A/2015/002333/SD 25.05.201519. CIC/VS/A/2015/002332/SD 25.05.201520. CIC/VS/A/2015/002225/SD 25.05.201521. CIC/VS/A/2015/002245/SD 25.05.201522. CIC/VS/A/2015/002247/SD 25.05.201523. CIC/VS/A/2015/002249/SD 25.05.201524. CIC/VS/A/2015/002253/SD 25.05.201525. CIC/VS/A/2015/002255/SD 25.05.201526. CIC/VS/A/2015/002259/SD 25.05.201527. CIC/VS/A/2015/002257/SD 25.05.201528. CIC/VS/A/2015/002261 /SD 25.05.201529. CIC/VS/A/2015/002299/SD 29.06.201530. CIC/VS/A/2015/002292/SD 29.06.201531. CIC/VS/A/2015/002300/SD 29.06.201532. CIC/VS/A/2015/002296/SD 29.06.201533. CIC/VS/A/2015/002295/SD 29.06.201534. CIC/VS/A/2015/002321/SD 29.06.201535. CIC/VS/A/2015/002317/SD 29.06.201536. CIC/VS/A/2015/002328/SD 29.06.201537. CIC/VS/A/2015/002327/SD 29.06.201538. CIC/VS/A/2015/002316/SD 29.06.201539. CIC/VS/A/2015/002305/SD 29.06.201540. CIC/VS/A/2015/002304/SD 29.06.201541. CIC/VS/A/2015/002267/SD 25.05.201542. CIC/VS/A/2015/002266/SD 25.05.201543. CIC/VS/A/2015/002271/SD 25.05.201544. CIC/VS/A/2015/002270/SD 25.05.201545. CIC/VS/A/2015/002273/SD 25.05.201546. CIC/VS/A/2015/002264/SD 25.05.2015

ANNEXURE-1(7)Date of Hearing- 22/03/2017

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/VS/A/2015/002418/SD 30.04.20152. CIC/VS/A/2015/002498/SD 30.04.20153. CIC/VS/A/2015/002483/SD 30.04.20154. CIC/VS/A/2015/002504/SD 30.04.20155. CIC/VS/A/2015/002486/SD 30.04.2015

Page 47: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

47

6. CIC/VS/A/2015/002491/SD 30.04.20157. CIC/VS/A/2015/002685/SD 30.04.20158. CIC/VS/A/2015/002488/SD 30.04.20159. CIC/VS/A/2015/002482/SD 30.04.201510. CIC/VS/A/2015/002506/SD 30.04.201511. CIC/VS/A/2015/002397/SD 30.04.201512. CIC/VS/A/2015/002398/SD 30.04.201513. CIC/VS/A/2015/002208/SD 30.04.201514. CIC/CC/A/2016/000916/SD 13.06.201515. CIC/VS/A/2015/002500/SD 30.04.201516. CIC/VS/A/2015/002209/SD 30.04.201517. CIC/VS/A/2015/002406/SD 30.04.201518. CIC/VS/A/2015/002687/SD 30.04.201519. CIC/VS/A/2015/002409/SD 30.04.201520. CIC/VS/A/2015/002691/SD 30.04.201521. CIC/VS/A/2015/002206/SD 30.04.201522. CIC/VS/A/2015/002714/SD 30.04.201523. CIC/VS/A/2015/002269/SD 30.04.201524. CIC/VS/A/2015/002207/SD 30.04.201525. CIC/VS/A/2015/002272/SD 30.04.201526. CIC/VS/A/2015/002416/SD 30.04.201527. CIC/VS/A/2015/002711/SD 30.04.201528. CIC/VS/A/2015/002414/SD 30.04.201529. CIC/VS/A/2015/002710/SD 30.04.201530. CIC/VS/A/2015/002708/SD 30.04.201531. CIC/VS/A/2015/002412/SD 30.04.201532. CIC/VS/A/2015/002693/SD 30.04.201533. CIC/CC/A/2015/000556/SD 13.09.201434. CIC/CC/A/2015/004630/SD 23.06.201535. CIC/CC/A/2015/004638/SD 23.06.201536. CIC/CC/A/2015/004704/SD 23.06.201537. CIC/CC/A/2015/004706/SD 23.06.201538. CIC/CC/A/2015/000411/SD 05.09.201439. CIC/CC/A/2015/004664/SD 23.06.201540. CIC/CC/A/2015/004663/SD 23.06.201541. CIC/CC/A/2015/004662/SD 23.06.201542. CIC/CC/A/2015/004542/SD 23.06.201543. CIC/CC/A/2015/004540/SD 23.06.201544. CIC/CC/A/2015/004631/SD 23.06.201545. CIC/CC/A/2015/004538/SD 23.06.201546. CIC/CC/A/2015/004536/SD 23.06.201547. CIC/CC/A/2015/004534/SD 23.06.201548. CIC/CC/A/2015/004533/SD 23.06.201549. CIC/CC/A/2015/004552/SD 23.06.201550. CIC/CC/A/2015/004665/SD 23.06.201551. CIC/CC/A/2015/004747/SD 29.06.201552. CIC/CC/A/2015/004748/SD 29.06.201553. CIC/CC/A/2015/004746/SD 29.06.201554. CIC/CC/A/2015/004750/SD 29.06.201555. CIC/CC/A/2015/004692/SD 29.06.201556. CIC/CC/A/2015/004579/SD 29.06.201557. CIC/CC/A/2015/004689/SD 29.06.201558. CIC/CC/A/2015/004749/SD 29.06.2015

Page 48: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

48

59. CIC/CC/A/2015/004606/SD 29.06.201560. CIC/CC/A/2015/004703/SD 29.06.201561. CIC/CC/A/2015/004702/SD 29.06.201562. CIC/CC/A/2015/004699/SD 29.06.201563. CIC/CC/A/2015/004605/SD 29.06.201564. CIC/CC/A/2015/004697/SD 29.06.201565. CIC/CC/A/2015/004751/SD 29.06.201566. CIC/CC/A/2015/004701/SD 29.06.201567. CIC/CC/A/2015/004752/SD 29.06.201568. CIC/CC/A/2015/004604/SD 29.06.201569. CIC/CC/A/2015/004693/SD 29.06.201570. CIC/VS/A/2015/002219/SD 29.06.201571. CIC/VS/A/2015/002222/SD 07.04.201572. CIC/VS/A/2015/002250/SD 07.04.201573. CIC/VS/A/2015/002223/SD 07.04.201574. CIC/VS/A/2015/002226/SD 07.04.201575. CIC/VS/A/2015/002228/SD 07.04.201576. CIC/VS/A/2015/002238/SD 07.04.201577. CIC/VS/A/2015/002248/SD 07.04.201578. CIC/VS/A/2015/002251/SD 07.04.201579. CIC/VS/A/2015/002252/SD 07.04.201580. CIC/VS/A/2015/002254/SD 07.04.201581. CIC/VS/A/2015/002256/SD 07.04.201582. CIC/VS/A/2015/002260/SD 07.04.201583. CIC/VS/A/2015/002268/SD 07.04.201584. CIC/CCA/2015/004695/SD 29.06.201585. CIC/CC/A/2015/001393/SD 04.07.201486. CIC/VS/A/2015/002543/SD 01.09.201487. CIC/CC/A/2015/001127/SD 06.09.201588. CIC/CC/A/2015/004781/SD 23.06.201589. CIC/CC/A/2015/004603/SD 23.06.201590. CIC/CC/A/2015/004599/SD 23.06.201591. CIC/CC/A/2015/004586/SD 23.06.201592. CIC/CC/A/2015/004601/SD 23.06.201593. CIC/CC/A/2015/004602/SD 23.06.201594. CIC/CC/A/2015/004597/SD 23.06.201595. CIC/CC/A/2015/004788/SD 23.06.201596. CIC/CC/A/2015/004707/SD 23.06.201597. CIC/CC/A/2015/004584/SD 23.06.201598. CIC/CC/A/2015/004582/SD 23.06.201599. CIC/CC/A/2015/004710/SD 23.06.2015100. CIC/CC/A/2015/004705/SD 23.06.2015101. CIC/CC/A/2015/004708/SD 23.06.2015102. CIC/VS/A/2015/002629/SD 05.05.2015103. CIC/VS/A/2015/002631/SD 04.04.2015104. CIC/VS/A/2015/002635/SD 04.04.2015105. CIC/VS/A/2015/002626/SD 04.04.2015106. CIC/VS/A/2015/002627/SD 04.04.2015107. CIC/VS/A/2015/002633/SD 04.04.2015108. CIC/CC/A/2016/000880/SD 23.06.2015109. CIC/CC/A/2016/000713/SD 23.06.2015110. CIC/CC/A/2016/000715/SD 23.06.2015111. CIC/CC/A/2016/000714/SD 23.06.2015

Page 49: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

49

112. CIC/CC/A/2016/000657/SD 23.06.2015113. CIC/CC/A/2016/000660/SD 23.06.2015114. CIC/CC/A/2016/000659/SD 23.06.2015115. CIC/CC/A/2016/000658/SD 23.06.2015116. CIC/CC/A/2016/000716/SD 23.06.2015117. CIC/CC/A/2016/000718/SD 23.06.2015118. CIC/CC/A/2016/000976/SD 23.06.2015119. CIC/CC/A/2016/000977/SD 23.06.2015120. CIC/CC/A/2016/000712/SD 23.06.2015121. CIC/CC/A/2016/000650/SD 23.06.2015122. CIC/CC/A/2016/000647/SD 23.06.2015123. CIC/CC/A/2016/000641/SD 23.06.2015124. CIC/CC/A/2015/000236/SD 13.09.2014125. CIC/CC/A/2015/000272/SD 13.09.2014126. CIC/CC/A/2015/000277/SD 13.09.2014127. CIC/CC/A/2015/000278/SD 13.09.2014128. CIC/CC/A/2015/000279/SD 13.09.2014129. CIC/CC/A/2015/000280/SD 13.09.2014130. CIC/CC/A/2015/000282/SD 13.09.2014131. CIC/CC/A/2015/000286/SD 13.09.2014132. CIC/CC/A/2014/002543/SD 01.09.2014133. CIC/RK/A/2016/000337/SD 23.06.2015134. CIC/RK/A/2016/000334/SD 23.06.2015135. CIC/RK/A/2016/000335/SD 23.06.2015136. CIC/RK/A/2016/000333/SD 23.06.2015137. CIC/CC/A/2015/004731/SD 29.06.2015138. CIC/CC/A/2015/004727/SD 29.06.2015139. CIC/CC/A/2015/004779/SD 29.06.2015140. CIC/CC/A/2015/004738/SD 29.06.2015141. CIC/CC/A/2015/004736/SD 29.06.2015142. CIC/CC/A/2015/004734/SD 29.06.2015143. CIC/CC/A/2015/004753/SD 29.06.2015144. CIC/CC/A/2015/004745/SD 29.06.2015145. CIC/CC/A/2015/004740/SD 29.06.2015146. CIC/CC/A/2015/004724/SD 29.06.2015147. CIC/CC/A/2015/004729/SD 29.06.2015148. CIC/CC/A/2015/004754/SD 29.06.2015149. CIC/CC/A/2015/004755/SD 29.06.2015150. CIC/CC/A/2015/004757/SD 29.06.2015151. CIC/CC/A/2015/004732/SD 29.06.2015152. CIC/CC/A/2015/004743/SD 29.06.2015153. CIC/CC/A/2015/004741/SD 29.06.2015154. CIC/CC/A/2015/004742/SD 29.06.2015155. CIC/CC/A/2015/004744/SD 29.06.2015156. CIC/CC/A/2015/004756/SD 29.06.2015157. CIC/CC/A/2015/000190/SD 10.09.2014158. CIC/CC/A/2015/000153/SD 10.09.2014159. CIC/CC/A/2015/000238/SD 10.09.2014160. CIC/CC/A/2015/000159/SD 10.09.2014161. CIC/RK/A/2016/000005/SD 29.06.2014162. CIC/CC/A/2014/002474/SD 01.08.2014163. CIC/CC/A/2014/002520/SD 01.08.2014

Page 50: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

50

164. CIC/CC/A/2016/000758/SD 29.06.2015165. CIC/CC/A/2016/000759/SD 29.06.2015166. CIC/CC/A/2016/000760/SD 29.06.2015167. CIC/CC/A/2016/000871/SD 29.06.2015168. CIC/CC/A/2016/000748/SD 29.06.2015169. CIC/CC/A/2016/000867/SD 29.06.2015170. CIC/CC/A/2016/000870/SD 29.06.2015171. CIC/CC/A/2016/000869/SD 29.06.2015172. CIC/CC/A/2016/000868/SD 29.06.2015173. CIC/RK/A/2016/000007/SD 29.06.2015174. CIC/RK/A/2016/000006/SD 29.06.2015175. CIC/RK/A/2016/000002/SD 29.06.2015176. CIC/CC/A/2016/000852/SD 23.06.2015177. CIC/CC/A/2016/000938/SD 23.06.2015178. CIC/CC/A/2016/000845/SD 23.06.2015179. CIC/CC/A/2016/000844/SD 23.06.2015180. CIC/CC/A/2016/000846/SD 23.06.2015181. CIC/CC/A/2016/000850/SD 23.06.2015182. CIC/CC/A/2016/000849/SD 23.06.2015183. CIC/CC/A/2016/000848/SD 23.06.2015184. CIC/CC/A/2016/000896/SD 23.06.2015185. CIC/CC/A/2016/000847/SD 23.06.2015186. CIC/CC/A/2016/000851/SD 23.06.2015187. CIC/CC/A/2016/000898/SD 23.06.2015188. CIC/CC/A/2016/000897/SD 23.06.2015189. CIC/CC/A/2016/000899/SD 23.06.2015190. CIC/CC/A/2016/000900/SD 23.06.2015191. CIC/CC/A/2016/000305/SD 29.06.2015192. CIC/CC/A/2016/000304/SD 29.06.2015193. CIC/CC/A/2016/000306/SD 29.06.2015194. CIC/CC/A/2016/000307/SD 29.06.2015195. CIC/CC/A/2016/000308/SD 29.06.2015196. CIC/CC/A/2016/000302/SD 29.06.2015197. CIC/RK/A/2016/000117/SD 23.06.2015198. CIC/CC/A/2016/000662/SD 23.06.2015199. CIC/CC/A/2016/000653/SD 23.06.2015200. CIC/CC/A/2016/000739/SD 23.06.2015201. CIC/CC/A/2016/000656/SD 23.06.2015202. CIC/CC/A/2016/000663/SD 23.06.2015203. CIC/CC/A/2016/000664/SD 23.06.2015204. CIC/CC/A/2016/000655/SD 23.06.2015205. CIC/CC/A/2016/000654/SD 23.06.2015206. CIC/CC/A/2016/000661/SD 23.06.2015207. CIC/VS/A/2015/002625/SD 04.04.2015208. CIC/CC/A/2015/004778/SD 23.06.2015209. CIC/VS/A/2015/002411/SD 30.04.2015210. CIC/VS/A/2015/002200/SD 07.04.2015211. CIC/CC/A/2015/000404/SD 09.09.2014212. CIC/CC/A/2014/001745/SD 25.07.2014213. CIC/RM/A/2014/002208/SD 28.01.2014214 CIC/VS/A/2015/002718/SD 07/04/2015215. CIC/VS/A/2015/002863/SD 07/04/2015216. CIC/VS/A/2015/002141/SD 07/04/2015

Page 51: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

51

ANNEXURE-1 (8)Date of Hearing- 23/03/2017

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2016/000819/SD 25.05.20152. CIC/CC/A/2016/000821/SD 25.05.20153. CIC/CC/A/2016/000779/SD 25.05.20154. CIC/CC/A/2016/000822/SD 25.05.20155. CIC/CC/A/2016/000818/SD 25.05.20156. CIC/CC/A/2016/000820/SD 25.05.20157. CIC/VS/A/2015/002810/SD 04.04.20158. CIC/CC/A/2016/000817/SD 25.05.20159. CIC/CC/A/2015/001274/SD 17.09.201410. CIC/CC/A/2015/001085/SD 17.09.201411. CIC/CC/A/2015/001084/SD 17.09.201412. CIC/CC/A/2015/001083/SD 17.09.201413. CIC/CC/A/2015/000271/SD 17.09.201414. CIC/CC/A/2015/000270/SD 17.09.201415. CIC/CC/A/2015/000269/SD 17.09.201416. CIC/CC/A/2015/00133/SD 17.09.2014

217. CIC/VS/A/2015/002229/SD 07/04/2015218. CIC/VS/A/2015/002725/SD 07/04/2015219. CIC/VS/A/2015/002719/SD 07/04/2015220. CIC/VS/A/2015/002232/SD 07/04/2015221. CIC/VS/A/2015/002770/SD 07/04/2015222. CIC/VS/A/2015/002842/SD 07/04/2015223. CIC/SA/A/2015/001391/SD 07/04/2015224. CIC/CC/A/2015/004589/SD 23/06/2015225. CIC/CC/A/2015/004580/SD 23/06/2015226. CIC/CC/A/2015/001481/SD 07/09/2014227. CIC/CC/A/2016/000992/SD 23/06/2015228. CIC/CC/A/2016/000812/SD 23/06/2015229. CIC/CC/A/2016/000811/SD 23/06/2015230. CIC/CC/A/2016/000671/SD 23/06/2015231. CIC/CC/A/2016/000642/SD 23/06/2015232. CIC/CC/A/2016/000652/SD 23/06/2015233. CIC/CC/A/2016/000673/SD 23/06/2015234. CIC/CC/A/2016/000669/SD 23/06/2015235. CIC/CC/A/2016/000672/SD 23/06/2015236. CIC/CC/A/2016/000674/SD 23/06/2015237. CIC/CC/A/2016/000991/SD 23/06/2015238. CIC/CC/A/2016/000813/SD 23/06/2015239. CIC/CC/A/2016/000676/SD 23/06/2015240. CIC/CC/A/2016/000648/SD 23/06/2015241. CIC/CC/A/2016/000858/SD 23/06/2015242. CIC/CC/A/2016/000640/SD 23/06/2015243. CIC/CC/A/2016/000809/SD 23/06/2015244. CIC/CC/A/2016/000562/SD 18/05/2015

Page 52: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

52

17. CIC/CC/A/2015/000108/SD 17.09.201418. CIC/VS/A/2015/002142/SD 07.04.201519. CIC/CC/A/2015/000087/SD 17.09.201420. CIC/VS/A/2015/002542/SD 07.04.201521. CIC/CC/A/2015/000275/SD 17.09.201422. CIC/CC/A/2015/000135/SD 17.09.201423. CIC/CC/A/2015/000274/SD 17.09.201424. CIC/CC/A/2015/000273/SD 17.09.201425. CIC/VS/A/2015/002592/SD 25.05.201526. CIC/VS/A/2015/002694/SD 25.05.201527. CIC/VS/A/2015/002660/SD 25.05.201528. CIC/VS/A/2015/002705/SD 25.05.201529. CIC/VS/A/2015/002702/SD 25.05.201530. CIC/VS/A/2015/002545/SD 07.04.201531. CIC/VS/A/2015/002452/SD 07.04.201532. CIC/VS/A/2015/002783/SD 07.04.201533. CIC/VS/A/2015/002458/SD 07.04.201534. CIC/VS/A/2015/002704/SD 07.04.201535. CIC/VS/A/2015/002775/.SD 07.04.201536. CIC/VS/A/2015/002421/SD 07.04.201537. CIC/VS/A/2015/002538/SD 07.04.201538. CIC/VS/A/2015/002541/SD 07.04.201539. CIC/VS/A/2015/002688/SD 25.05.201540. CIC/VS/A/2015/002699/SD 25.05.201541. CIC/VS/A/2015/002671/SD 25.05.201542. CIC/VS/A/2015/002442/SD 25.05.201543. CIC/VS/A/2015/002674/SD 25.05.201544. CIC/VS/A/2015/002684/SD 25.05.201545. CIC/VS/A/2015/002677/SD 25.05.201546. CIC/VS/A/2015/002139/SD 25.05.201547. CIC/VS/A/2015/002137/SD 25.05.201548. CIC/VS/A/2015/002138/SD 25.05.201549. CIC/VS/A/2015/002584/SD 25.05.201550. CIC/VS/A/2015/002637/SD 30.04.201551. CIC/VS/A/2015/002650/SD 30.04.201552. CIC/VS/A/2015/002698/SD 30.04.201553. CIC/VS/A/2015/002564/SD 30.04.201554. CIC/VS/A/2015/002692/SD 30.04.201555. CIC/VS/A/2015/002339/SD 25.05.201556. CIC/VS/A/2015/002566/SD 30.04.201557. CIC/VS/A/2015/002662/SD 30.04.201558. CIC/VS/A/2015/002654/SD 30.04.201559. CIC/VS/A/2015/002596/SD 30.04.201560. CIC/VS/A/2015/002638/SD 30.04.201561. CIC/VS/A/2015/002571/SD 30.04.201562. CIC/VS/A/2015/002659/SD 30.04.201563. CIC/VS/A/2015/002651/SD 30.04.2015

Page 53: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

53

64. CIC/CC/A/2015/001767/SD 17.09.201465. CIC/CC/A/2015/000455/SD 17.09.201466. CIC/CC/A/2015/000446/SD 17.09.201467. CIC/CC/A/2015/001770/SD 17.09.201468. CIC/VS/A/2015/002480/SD 30.04.201569. CIC/VS/A/2015/002644/SD 30.04.201570. CIC/VS/A/2015/002534/SD 30.04.201571. CIC/VS/A/2015/002657/SD 30.04.201572. CIC/VS/A/2015/002577/SD 30.04.201573. CIC/VS/A/2015/002690/SD 30.04.201574. CIC/VS/A/2015/002678/SD 30.04.201575. CIC/VS/A/2015/002665/SD 30.04.201576. CIC/VS/A/2015/002695/SD 30.04.201577. CIC/VS/A/2015/002645/SD 30.04.201578. CIC/VS/A/2015/002668/SD 30.04.201579. CIC/VS/A/2015/002670/SD 30.04.201580. CIC/VS/A/2015/002648/SD 30.04.201581. CIC/VS/A/2015/002641/SD 30.04.201582. CIC/VS/A/2015/002569/SD 30.04.201583. CIC/VS/A/2015/002532/SD 30.04.201584. CIC/VS/A/2015/002686/SD 30.04.201585. CIC/VS/A/2015/002697/SD 30.04.201586. CIC/VS/A/2015/002581/SD 03.07.201587. CIC/CC/A/2016/000804/SD 25.05.201588. CIC/CC/A/2016/000801/SD 25.05.201589. CIC/CC/A/2016/000802/SD 25.05.201590. CIC/CC/A/2016/000803/SD 25.06.201591. CIC/CC/A/2016/000800/SD 25.05.201592. CIC/CC/A/2016/000798/SD 25.05.201593. CIC/CC/A/2016/000797/SD 25.05.201594. CIC/CC/A/2016/000799/SD 25.05.201595. CIC/RK/A/2016/000354/SD 25.05.201596. CIC/RK/A/2016/000355/SD 25.05.201597. CIC/RK/A/2016/000357/SD 25.05.201598. CIC/VS/A/2015/002679/SD 25.05.201599. CIC/RK/A/2016/000358/SD 25.05.2015100. CIC/RK/A/2016/000361/SD 25.05.2015101. CIC/RK/A/2016/000359/SD 25.05.2015102. CIC/RK/A/2016/000362/SD 25.05.2015103. CIC/RK/A/2016/000363/SD 25.05.2015104. CIC/RK/A/2016/000360/SD 25.05.2015105. CIC/VS/A/2015/002216/SD 07.04.2015106. CIC/VS/A/2015/002221/SD 07.04.2015107. CIC/VS/A/2015/002262/SD 07.04.2015108. CIC/VS/A/2015/002215/SD 07.04.2015109. CIC/VS/A/2015/002217/SD 07.04.2015110. CIC/VS/A/2015/002242/SD 07.04.2015111. CIC/VS/A/2015/002218/SD 07.04.2015112. CIC/VS/A/2015/002212/SD 07.04.2015113. CIC/VS/A/2015/002211/SD 07.04.2015114. CIC/VS/A/2015/002240/SD 07.04.2015115. CIC/VS/A/2015/002244/SD 07.04.2015116. CIC/VS/A/2015/002243/SD 07.04.2015

Page 54: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

54

117. CIC/VS/A/2015/002210/SD 07.04.2015118. CIC/VS/A/2015/002263/SD 07.04.2015119. CIC/VS/A/2015/002214/SD 07.04.2015120. CIC/CC/A/2016/000558/SD 18.05.2015121. CIC/CC/A/2016/000482/SD 18.05.2015122. CIC/CC/A/2016/000618/SD 18.05.2015123. CIC/CC/A/2016/000481/SD 18.05.2015124. CIC/CC/A/2016/000483/SD 18.05.2015125. CIC/CC/A/2016/000479/SD 18.05.2015126. CIC/VS/A/2015/002617/SD 04/04/2015127. CIC/VS/A/2015/002615/SD 04/04/2015128. CIC/CC/A/2015/002029/SD 24.10.2014129. CIC/CC/A/2015/001345/SD 24.10.2014130. CIC/CC/A/2015/001344/SD 24.10.2014131. CIC/CC/A/2015/001343/SD 24.10.2014132. CIC/CC/A/2015/001342/SD 24.10.2014133. CIC/CC/A/2015/001315/SD 24.10.2014134. CIC/CC/A/2015/001313/SD 24.10.2014135. CIC/CC/A/2015/001312/SD 24.10.2014136. CIC/CC/A/2015/001311/SD 24.10.2014137. CIC/CC/A/2015/001367/SD 24.10.2014138. CIC/CC/A/2015/001379/SD 24.10.2014139. CIC/CC/A/2015/001401/SD 24.10.2014140. CIC/CC/A/2015/001400/SD 24.10.2014141. CIC/CC/A/2016/000985/SD 29.06.2015142. CIC/CC/A/2016/000984/SD 29.06.2015143. CIC/CC/A/2016/000982/SD 29.06.2015144. CIC/CC/A/2016/000981/SD 29.06.2015145. CIC/CC/A/2016/000980/SD 29.06.2015146 CIC/CC/A/2016/000806/SD 29.06.2015147 CIC/RK/A/2016/000016/SD 29.06.2015148 CIC/RK/A/2016/000015/SD 29.06.2015149 CIC/RK/A/2016/000014/SD 29.06.2015150 CIC/CC/A/2016/000989/SD 29.06.2015151 CIC/CC/A/2016/000988/SD 29.06.2015152 CIC/CC/A/2016/000987/SD 29.06.2015153 CIC/CC/A/2016/000986/SD 29.06.2015154 CIC/CC/A/2015/001681/SD 17.09.2014155 CIC/CC/A/2015/001680/SD 17.09.2014156 CIC/CC/A/2015/001678/SD 17.09.2014157 CIC/CC/A/2015/000714/SD 17.09.2014158 CIC/CC/A/2015/000701/SD 17.09.2014159 CIC/CC/A/2015/000700/SD 17.09.2014160 CIC/CC/A/2015/001672/SD 17.09.2014161 CIC/CC/A/2015/000748/SD 17.09.2014162 CIC/CC/A/2015/000747/SD 17.09.2014163 CIC/CC/A/2015/000746/SD 17.09.2014164 CIC/CC/A/2015/000745/SD 17.09.2014165 CIC/CC/A/2015/000744/SD 17.09.2014166 CIC/CC/A/2015/000743/SD 17.09.2014167 CIC/CC/A/2015/000742/SD 17.09.2014168 CIC/CC/A/2015/000741/SD 17.09.2014169 CIC/CC/A/2015/000281/SD 17.09.2014

Page 55: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

55

ANNEXURE-1(9)Date of Hearing -24/03/2017

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2016/000722/SD 23.06.20152. CIC/CC/A/2016/000724/SD 23.06.20153. CIC/CC/A/2016/000720/SD 30.04.20154. CIC/RK/A/2016/000116/SD 23.06.20155. CIC/RK/A/2016/000115/SD 23.06.20156. CIC/RK/A/2016/000114/SD 23.06.20157. CIC/RK/A/2016/000113/SD 23.06.20158. CIC/RK/A/2016/000112/SD 23.06.20159. CIC/RK/A/2016/000111/SD 23.06.201510. CIC/RK/A/2016/000110/SD 23.06.201511. CIC/CC/A/2016/000772/SD 23.06.201512. CIC/CC/A/2016/000773/SD 23.06.201513. CIC/CC/A/2016/000774/SD 23.06.201514. CIC/CC/A/2016/000775/SD 23.06.201515. CIC/CC/A/2016/000778/SD 23.06.201516. CIC/CC/A/2016/000777/SD 23.06.201517. CIC/CC/A/2016/000776/SD 23.06.201518. CIC/CC/A/2016/000838/SD 23.06.201519. CIC/CC/A/2016/000843/SD 23.06.201520. CIC/CC/A/2016/000842/SD 23.06.201521. CIC/CC/A/2015/000194/SD 10.09.201423. CIC/CC/A/2015/000154/SD 10.09.201424. CIC/CC/A/2014/001824/SD 20.07.2014

170 CIC/CC/A/2015/000230/SD 17.09.2014171 CIC/CC/A/2015/000229/SD 17.09.2014172 CIC/CC/A/2015/000276/SD 17.09.2014173 CIC/CC/A/2015/000217/SD 17.09.2014174 CIC/CC/A/2015/000215/SD 17.09.2014175 CIC/CC/A/2015/000214/SD 17.09.2014176 CIC/CC/A/2015/000213/SD 17.09.2014177 CIC/CC/A/2015/000170/SD 17.09.2014178 CIC/CC/A/2015/000167/SD 17.09.2014179 CIC/CC/A/2015/000093/SD 17.09.2014180 CIC/CC/A/2015/000218/SD 17.09.2014181 CIC/CC/A/2015/000303/SD 17.09.2014182 CIC/CC/A/2015/000092/SD 17.09.2014183 CIC/CC/A/2015/000094/SD 17.09.2014184 CIC/CC/A/2016/000274/SD 29.06.2015185 CIC/CC/A/2016/000275/SD 29.06.2015186 CIC/CC/A/2015/002479/SD 21.09.2014187 CIC/CC/A/2015/002481/SD 21.09.2014188 CIC/CC/A/2015/002480/SD 21.09.2014189 CIC/CC/A/2015/002483/SD 21.09.2014190 CIC/CC/A/2015/002478/SD 21.09.2014

Page 56: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

56

25. CIC/CC/A/2015/000342/SD 30.08.201426. CIC/CC/A/2015/000343/SD 30.08.201427. CIC/CC/A/2015/000344/SD 30.08.201428. CIC/CC/A/2015/000345/SD 30.08.201429. CIC/CC/A/2015/000346/SD 30.08.201430. CIC/CC/A/2015/000347/SD 30.08.201431. CIC/CC/A/2015/000348/SD 30.08.201432. CIC/CC/A/2015/000349/SD 30.08.201433. CIC/CC/A/2015/000352/SD 30.08.201434. CIC/CC/A/2015/000570/SD 30.03.201435. CIC/CC/A/2015/000350/SD 30.08.201436. CIC/CC/A/2015/000836/SD 30.08.201437. CIC/CC/A/2015/000837/SD 30.08.201438. CIC/CC/A/2015/000866/SD 30.08.201439. CIC/CC/A/2015/000872/SD 30.08.201440. CIC/CC/A/2015/001685/SD 30.08.201441. CIC/CC/A/2015/000835/SD 30.08.201442. CIC/CC/A/2015/000834/SD 30.08.201443. CIC/CC/A/2015/000832/SD 30.08.201444. CIC/CC/A/2015/000828/SD 30.08.201445. CIC/CC/A/2015/000733/SD 30.08.201446. CIC/CC/A/2015/001679/SD 30.08.201447. CIC/RK/A/2016/000084/SD 25.05.201548. CIC/RK/A/2016/000077/SD 25.05.201549. CIC/RK/A/2016/000076/SD 25.05.201550. CIC/CC/A/2015/004592/SD 25.05.201551. CIC/CC/A/2015/004593/SD 25.05.201552. CIC/CC/A/2016/000114/SD 25.05.201553. CIC/CC/A/2015/004658/SD 25.05.2015

55. CIC/VS/A/2015/002484/SD 25.05.201556. CIC/VS/A/2015/002455/SD 25.05.201557. CIC/VS/A/2015/002570/SD 25.05.201558. CIC/VS/A/2015/002450/SD 25.05.201559. CIC/VS/A/2015/002420/SD 25.05.201560. CIC/VS/A/2015/002449/SD 25.05.201561. CIC/VS/A/2015/002559/SD 25.05.201562. CIC/VS/A/2015/002562/SD 25.05.201563. CIC/VS/A/2015/002454/SD 25.05.201564. CIC/VS/A/2015/002716/SD 25.05.201565. CIC/VS/A/2015/002459/SD 25.05.201566. CIC/VS/A/2015/002402/SD 25.05.201567. CIC/VS/A/2015/002403/SD 25.05.201568. CIC/RK/A/2016/000085/SD 25.05.201569. CIC/RK/A/2016/000073/SD 25.05.201570. CIC/RK/A/2016/000070/SD 25.05.201571. CIC/RK/A/2016/000072/SD 25.05.201572. CIC/RK/A/2016/000071/SD 25.05.201573. CIC/RK/A/2016/000083/SD 25.05.201574. CIC/RK/A/2016/000074/SD 25.05.201575. CIC/RK/A/2016/000086/SD 25.05.201576. CIC/RK/A/2016/000075/SD 25.05.201577. CIC/RK/A/2016/000078/SD 25.05.2015

Page 57: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

57

78. CIC/RK/A/2016/000088/SD 25.05.201579. CIC/RK/A/2016/000079/SD 25.05.201580. CIC/RK/A/2016/000087/SD 25.05.201581. CIC/RK/A/2016/000278/SD 25.05.201582. CIC/RK/A/2016/000284/SD 25.05.201583. CIC/RK/A/2016/000273/SD 25.05.201584. CIC/RK/A/2016/000270/SD 25.05.201585. CIC/RK/A/2016/000267/SD 25.05.201586. CIC/RK/A/2016/000314/SD 25.05.201587. CIC/CC/A/2016/000795/SD 25.05.201588. CIC/RK/A/2016/000286/SD 25.05.201589. CIC/CC/A/2016/000276/SD 25.05.201590. CIC/RK/A/2016/000313/SD 25.05.201591. CIC/CC/A/2016/000796/SD 25.05.201592. CIC/CC/A/2016/000108/SD 25.05.201593. CIC/CC/A/2016/000109/SD 25.05.201594. CIC/CC/A/2016/000120/SD 25.05.201595. CIC/CC/A/2015/004655/SD 25.05.201596. CIC/CC/A/2015/004545/SD 25.05.201597. CIC/CC/A/2016/000106/SD 25.05.201598. CIC/CC/A/2015/004654/SD 25.05.201599. CIC/CC/A/2015/004544/SD 25.05.2015100. CIC/CC/A/2015/004649/SD 25.05.2015101. CIC/CC/A/2015/004648/SD 25.05.2015102. CIC/CC/A/2015/004645/SD 25.05.2015103. CIC/CC/A/2015/004643/SD 25.05.2015104. CIC/CC/A/2015/000121/SD 25.05.2015105. CIC/CC/A/2015/004550/SD 25.05.2015106. CIC/CC/A/2016/000119/SD 25.05.2015107. CIC/CC/A/2016/000117/SD 25.05.2015108. CIC/CC/A/2016/000104/SD 25.05.2015109. CIC/CC/A/2016/000116/SD 25.05.2015110. CIC/CC/A/2016/000111/SD 25.05.2015111. CIC/CC/A/2016/000112/SD 25.05.2015112. CIC/CC/A/2015/004656/SD 25.05.2015113. CIC/CC/A/2015/004653/SD 25.05.2015114. CIC/CC/A/2015/004650/SD 25.05.2015115. CIC/CC/A/2015/004652/SD 25.05.2015116. CIC/CC/A/2015/004651/SD 25.05.2015117. CIC/CC/A/2015/004647/SD 25.05.2015118. CIC/CC/A/2015/004646/SD 25.05.2015119. CIC/CC/A/2015/004644/SD 25.05.2015120. CIC/CC/A/2015/004641/SD 25.05.2015121. CIC/CC/A/2016/000311/SD 29.06.2015122. CIC/CC/A/2016/000310/SD 29.06.2015123. CIC/CC/A/2016/000309/SD 29.06.2015124. CIC/CC/A/2016/000339/SD 29.06.2015125. CIC/CC/A/2015/004780/SD 29.06.2015126. CIC/CC/A/2015/004775/SD 29.06.2015127. CIC/CC/A/2015/004774/SD 29.06.2015128. CIC/CC/A/2015/004773/SD 29.06.2015129. CIC/CC/A/2015/004772/SD 29.06.2015130. CIC/CC/A/2015/004781/SD 29.06.2015

Page 58: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

58

131. CIC/CC/A/2015/004591/SD 23.06.2015132. CIC/CC/A/2015/004771/SD 29.06.2015133. CIC/CC/A/2015/004770/SD 29.06.2015134. CIC/CC/A/2015/004768/SD 29.06.2015135. CIC/CC/A/2015/004767/SD 29.06.2015136. CIC/CC/A/2015/004765/SD 29.06.2015137. CIC/CC/A/2015/004764/SD 29.06.2015138. CIC/CC/A/2015/004763/SD 29.06.2015139. CIC/CC/A/2015/004762/SD 29.06.2015140. CIC/CC/A/2015/004761/SD 29.06.2015141. CIC/CC/A/2015/004760/SD 29.06.2015142. CIC/CC/A/2015/004758/SD 29.06.2015143. CIC/CC/A/2015/004075/SD 28.07.2014144. CIC/CC/A/2015/004766/SD 29.06.2015145. CIC/CC/A/2015/004769/SD 29.06.2015146 CIC/CC/A/2015/004721/SD 23.06.2015147 CIC/CC/A/2015/004716/SD 23.06.2015148 CIC/CC/A/2015/004715/SD 23.06.2015149 CIC/CC/A/2015/004718/SD 23.06.2015150 CIC/CC/A/2015/004713/SD 23.06.2015151 CIC/CC/A/2015/004720/SD 23.06.2015152 CIC/CC/A/2015/004725/SD 23.06.2015153 CIC/CC/A/2015/004733/SD 23.06.2015154 CIC/CC/A/2015/004735/SD 23.06.2015155 CIC/CC/A/2015/004730/SD 23.06.2015156 CIC/CC/A/2015/004726/SD 23.06.2015157 CIC/CC/A/2015/004737/SD 23.06.2015158 CIC/CC/A/2015/004739/SD 23.06.2015159 CIC/CC/A/2015/004723/SD 23.06.2015160 CIC/CC/A/2015/001128/SD 08.09.2014161 CIC/CC/A/2015/004612/SD 29.06.2015162 CIC/CC/A/2015/004635/SD 29.06.2015163 CIC/CC/A/2015/004789/SD 29.06.2015164 CIC/CC/A/2015/004574/SD 29.06.2015165 CIC/CC/A/2015/004548/SD 29.06.2015166 CIC/CC/A/2015/004547/SD 13.08.2015167 CIC/CC/A/2015/004546/SD 29.06.2015168 CIC/CC/A/2015/004634/SD 29.06.2015169 CIC/CC/A/2015/004633/SD 29.06.2015170 CIC/CC/A/2015/004632/SD 29.06.2015171 CIC/CC/A/2015/004613/SD 29.06.2015172 CIC/CC/A/2015/004611/SD 29.06.2015173 CIC/CC/A/2015/004610/SD 29.06.2015174 CIC/CC/A/2015/004609/SD 29.06.2015175 CIC/CC/A/2015/004608/SD 29.06.2015176 CIC/CC/A/2015/004607/SD 29.06.2015177 CIC/CC/A/2015/004596/SD 29.06.2015178 CIC/CC/A/2015/004543/SD 29.06.2015179 CIC/CC/A/2016/000206/SD 29.01.2015180 CIC/CC/A/2015/004790/SD 29.06.2015181 CIC/CC/A/2015/004793/SD 29.06.2015182 CIC/CC/A/2015/004791/SD 29.06.2015183 CIC/CC/A/2015/004794/SD 29.06.2015

Page 59: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

59

184 CIC/CC/A/2015/004792/SD 29.06.2015185 CIC/CC/A/2015/000204/SD 29.06.2015186 CIC/CC/A/2015/004578/SD 29.06.2015187 CIC/CC/A/2015/004577/SD 29.06.2015188 CIC/CC/A/2015/004576/SD 29.06.2015189 CIC/CC/A/2015/004788/SD 23.06.2015190 CIC/CC/A/2015/004787/SD 29.06.2015191 CIC/CC/A/2015/004786/SD 29.06.2015192 CIC/CC/A/2015/004785/SD 29.06.2015193 CIC/CC/A/2015/004777/SD 29.06.2015194 CIC/CC/A/2015/004700/SD 29.06.2015195 CIC/CC/A/2015/004776/SD 29.06.2015196 CIC/CC/A/2015/004642/SD 29.06.2015197 CIC/CC/A/2015/004636/SD 29.06.2015198 CIC/CC/A/2015/004640/SD 29.06.2015199 CIC/CC/A/2016/000780/SD 23.06.2015200 CIC/CC/A/2016/000815/SD 23.06.2015201 CIC/CC/A/2016/000731/SD 23.06.2015202 CIC/CC/A/2016/000730/SD 23.06.2015203 CIC/CC/A/2016/000788/SD 23.06.2015204 CIC/CC/A/2016/000787/SD 23.06.2015205 CIC/CC/A/2016/000808/SD 23.06.2015206 CIC/CC/A/2016/000805/SD 23.06.2015207 CIC/CC/A/2016/000665/SD 23.06.2015208 CIC/CC/A/2016/000816/SD 23.06.2015209 CIC/CC/A/2016/000785/SD 23.06.2015210 CIC/CC/A/2016/000807/SD 23.06.2015211 CIC/CC/A/2016/000783/SD 23.06.2015212 CIC/CC/A/2016/000786/SD 23.06.2015213 CIC/CC/A/2016/000729/SD 23.06.2015214 CIC/C/A/2016/000784/SD 23.06.2015215 CIC/CC/A/2016/000782/SD 23.06.2015216 CIC/CC/A/2016/000781/SD 23.06.2015217 CIC/CC/A/2016/000728/SD 23.06.2015218 CIC/CC/A/2016/000667/SD 23.06.2015219 CIC/CC/A/2016/000733/SD 23.06.2015220 CIC/RK/A/2016/000448/SD 23.06.2015221 CIC/RK/A/2016/000449/SD 23.06.2015222 CIC/RK/A/2016/000444/SD 23.06.2015223 CIC/RK/A/2016/000447/SD 23.06.2015224 CIC/RK/A/2016/000442/SD 23.06.2015225 CIC/RK/A/2016/000443/SD 23.06.2015226 CIC/RK/A/2016/000452/SD 23.06.2015227 CIC/RK/A/2016/000441/SD 23.06.2015228 CIC/RK/A/2016/000440/SD 23.06.2015229 CIC/RK/A/2016/000439/SD 23.06.2015230 CIC/RK/A/2016/000438/SD 23.06.2015231 CIC/RK/A/2016/000456/SD 23.06.2015232 CIC/RK/A/2016/000453/SD 23.06.2015233 CIC/RK/A/2016/000322/SD 23.06.2015234 CIC/RK/A/2016/000331/SD 23.06.2015235 CIC/RK/A/2016/000329/SD 23.06.2015236 CIC/RK/A/2016/000330/SD 23.06.2015

Page 60: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

60

237 CIC/CC/A/2015/004677/SD 23.06.2015238 CIC/CC/A/2015/004678/SD 23.06.2015239 CIC/CC/A/2015/003373/SD 09.07.2014240 CIC/CC/A/2015/000222/SD 12.09.2014241 CIC/CC/A/2015/000333/SD 12.09.2014242 CIC/CC/A/2015/000216/SD 12.09.2014243 CIC/CC/A/2015/000211/SD 12.09.2014244 CIC/CC/A/2015/000255/SD 12.09.2014245 CIC/CC/A/2015/000191/SD 12.09.2014246 CIC/CC/A/2015/000208/SD 12.09.2014247 CIC/CC/A/2015/000221/SD 12.09.2014248 CIC/CC/A/2015/000220/SD 12.09.2014249 CIC/CC/A/2015/001328/SD 12.09.2014250 CIC/RM/A/2014/003357/SD 01/02/2014251 CIC/CC/A/2016/000919/SD 29/06/2015252 CIC/CC/A/2016/000920/SD 29/06/2015253. CIC/CC/A/2016/000922/SD 29/06/2015254 CIC/CC/A/2016/000923/SD 29/06/2015255 CIC/CC/A/2016/000924/SD 29/06/2015256 CIC/CC/A/2016/000925/SD 29/06/2015257 CIC/CC/A/2016/000926/SD 29/06/2015258 CIC/CC/A/2016/000936/SD 29/06/2015259 CIC/CC/A/2016/000901/SD 29/06/2015260 CIC/CC/A/2016/000903/SD 29/06/2015261 CIC/CC/A/2016/000904/SD 29/06/2015262 CIC/CC/A/2016/000907/SD 29/06/2015263 CIC/CC/A/2016/000908/SD 29/06/2015264 CIC/CC/A/2016/000909/SD 29/06/2015265 CIC/CC/A/2016/000910/SD 29/06/2015266 CIC/CC/A/2016/000911/SD 29/06/2015267 CIC/CC/A/2016/000912/SD 29/06/2015268 CIC/CC/A/2016/000913/SD 29/06/2015269 CIC/CC/A/2016/000917/SD 29/06/2015270 CIC/CC/A/2016/000915/SD 29/06/2015271 CIC/CC/A/2016/000645/SD 29/06/2015272 CIC/RK/A/2016/000029/SD 29/06/2015273 CIC/RK/A/2016/000028/SD 29/06/2015274 CIC/RK/A/2016/000027/SD 29/06/2015275 CIC/RK/A/2016/000026/SD 29/06/2015276 CIC/RK/A/2016/000025/SD 29/06/2015277 CIC/RK/A/2016/000021/SD 29/06/2015278 CIC/RK/A/2016/000020/SD 29/06/2015279 CIC/RK/A/2016/000018/SD 29/06/2015280 CIC/RK/A/2016/000017/SD 29/06/2015281 CIC/RK/A/2016/000031/SD 29/06/2015282 CIC/RK/A/2016/000024/SD 29/06/2015283 CIC/RK/A/2016/000022/SD 29/06/2015284 CIC/CC/A/2016/000644/SD 29/06/2015285 CIC/RK/A/2016/000019/SD 29/06/2015286 CIC/CC/A/2016/000349/SD 29/06/2015287 CIC/CC/A/2016/000350/SD 29/06/2015288 CIC/CC/A/2016/000351/SD 29/06/2015289 CIC/CC/A/2016/000029/SD 29/06/2015

Page 61: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

61

290 CIC/RM/A/2014/004451/SD 02/02/2014291 CIC/RM/A/2014/004502/SD 02/02/2014292 CIC/CC/A/2015/004728/SD 23/06/2015293 CIC/CC/A/2015/004657/SD 25/05/2015294 CIC/CC/A/2015/000865/SD 29/08/2014295 CIC/CC/A/2015/000874/SD 29/08/2014296 CIC/CC/A/2015/000854/SD 29/08/2014297 CIC/CC/A/2015/000827/SD 29/08/2014298 CIC/CC/A/2015/000816/SD 29/08/2014299 CIC/CC/A/2015/000814/SD 29/08/2014300 CIC/CC/A/2015/000736/SD 29/08/2014301 CIC/CC/A/2015/003827/SD 10/09/2014302 CIC/CC/A/2015/003828/SD 10/09/2014303 CIC/CC/A/2014/002472/SD 28/07/2014304 CIC/RK/A/2016/000318/SD 23/05/2015305 CIC/CC/A/2015/000374/SD 29/08/2014306 CIC/CC/A/2015/000341/SD 29/08/2014307 CIC/CC/A/2015/004759/SD 29/06/2015308 CIC/CC/A/2015/000450/SD 23/06/2015

ANNEXURE – 1(10)Date of Hearing- 28/03/2017

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2015/001682/SD 01.08.20142. CIC/CC/A/2015/001684/SD 01.08.20143. CIC/CC/A/2015/001755/SD 01.08.20144. CIC/CC/A/2015/001683/SD 01.08.20145. CIC/RM/A/2014/002897/SD 13.01.20146. CIC/RM/A/2014/002898/SD 13.01.20147. CIC/RM/A/2014/003260/SD 06.01.20148. CIC/RM/A/2014/003258/SD 06.01.20149. CIC/RM/A/2014/003257/SD 06.01.201410. CIC/RM/A/2014/003256/SD 06.01.201411. CIC/RM/A/2014/004020/SD 09.01.201412. CIC/CC/A/2015/003729/SD 20.01.201513. CIC/CC/A/2015/001691/SD 01.08.201414. CIC/VS/A/2015/003179/SD 25.05.201515. CIC/VS/A/2015/003176/SD 25.05.201516. CIC/VS/A/2015/003180/SD 25.05.201517. CIC/VS/A/2015/003182/SD 25.05.201518. CIC/VS/A/2015/002343/SD 25.05.201519. CIC/VS/A/2015/003482/SD 25.05.201520. CIC/CC/A/2015/001498/SD 25.10.201421. CIC/CC/A/2015/001500/SD 25.10.201422. CIC/CC/A/2015/001484/SD 25.10.201423. CIC/CC/A/2015/001277/SD 25.10.201424. CIC/CC/A/2015/001255/SD 25.10.201425. CIC/VS/A/2015/001993/SD 20.01.2015

Page 62: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

62

26. CIC/CC/A/2014/001337/SD 04.06.201427. CIC/CC/A/2014/001548/SD 04.06.201428. CIC/CC/A/2015/000083/SD 10.09.201429. CIC/CC/A/2015/000288/SD 10.09.201430. CIC/CC/A/2015/000298/SD 18.05.201531. CIC/CC/A/2015/000301/SD 10.09.201432. CIC/CC/A/2015/000302/SD 10.09.201433. CIC/VS/A/2015/002911/SD 25.05.201534. CIC/VS/A/2015/002643/SD 25.05.201535. CIC/VS/A/2015/002646/SD 25.05.201536. CIC/VS/A/2015/002653/SD 25.05.201537. CIC/VS/A/2015/002777/SD 25.05.201538. CIC/VS/A/2015/002910/SD 25.05.201539. CIC/VS/A/2015/002622/SD 25.05.201540. CIC/VS/A/2015/002636/SD 25.05.201541. CIC/VS/A/2015/002620/SD 25.05.201542. CIC/VS/A/2015/001936/SD 10.02.201543. CIC/VS/A/2015/001938/SD 10.02.201544. CIC/VS/A/2015/001937/SD 10.02.201545. CIC/VS/A/2015/001939/SD 10.02.201546. CIC/CC/A/2015/001326/SD 25.10.201447. CIC/CC/A/2015/001497/SD 25.10.201448. CIC/RK/A/2016/000053/SD 25.05.201549. CIC/RK/A/2016/000054/SD 25.05.201550. CIC/RK/A/2016/000055/SD 25.05.201551. CIC/RK/A/2016/000057/SD 25.05.201552. CIC/RK/A/2016/000067/SD 25.05.201553. CIC/RK/A/2016/000065/SD 25.05.201554. CIC/RK/A/2016/000064/SD 25.05.201555. CIC/RK/A/2016/000063/SD 25.05.201556. CIC/RK/A/2016/000062/SD 25.05.201557. CIC/RK/A/2016/000061/SD 25.05.201558. CIC/RK/A/2016/000060/SD 25.05.201559. CIC/RK/A/2016/000059/SD 25.05.201560. CIC/RK/A/2016/000069/SD 25.05.201561. CIC/RK/A/2016/000068/SD 25.05.201562. CIC/RK/A/2016/000056/SD 25.05.201563. CIC/RK/A/2016/000052/SD 25.05.201564. CIC/VS/A/2015/002619/SD 04.04.201565. CIC/CC/A/2016/000298/SD 18.05.201566. CIC/CC/A/2014/001339/SD 09.03.201467. CIC/RK/A/2016/000349/SD 25.05.201568. CIC/RK/A/2016/000353/SD 25.05.201569. CIC/RK/A/2016/000344/SD 25.05.201570. CIC/RK/A/2016/000345/SD 25.05.201571. CIC/RK/A/2016/000336/SD 25.05.201572. CIC/RK/A/2016/000341/SD 25.05.201573. CIC/RK/A/2016/000342/SD 25.05.201574. CIC/RK/A/2016/000343/SD 25.05.201575. CIC/RK/A/2016/000340/SD 25.05.201576. CIC/RK/A/2016/000338/SD 25.05.201577. CIC/RK/A/2016/000339/SD 25.05.201578. CIC/CC/A/2016/000928/SD 25.05.2015

Page 63: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

63

79. CIC/CC/A/2016/000175/SD 18.05.201580. CIC/CC/A/2016/000177/SD 18.05.201581. CIC/CC/A/2016/000262/SD 18.05.201582. CIC/CC/A/2016/000263/SD 18.05.201583. CIC/CC/A/2016/000299/SD 25.05.201584. CIC/CC/A/2016/000183/SD 18.05.201585. CIC/CC/A/2016/000185/SD 18.05.201586. CIC/CC/A/2016/000187/SD 18.05.201587. CIC/CC/A/2016/000232/SD 18.05.201588. CIC/CC/A/2016/000297/SD 18.05.201589. CIC/CC/A/2016/000273/SD 18.05.201590. CIC/CC/A/2016/000295/SD 18.05.201591. CIC/CC/A/2016/000296/SD 18.05.201592. CIC/CC/A/2016/000236/SD 18.05.201593. CIC/CC/A/2016/000188/SD 18.05.201594. CIC/CC/A/2016/000235/SD 18.05.201595. CIC/CC/A/2016/000234/SD 18.05.201596. CIC/CC/A/2016/000233/SD 18.05.201597. CIC/CC/A/2016/000182/SD 25.05.201598. CIC/CC/A/2015/002740/SD 13.07.201499. CIC/VS/A/2015/002861/SD 04.04.2015

ANNEXURE-1(11)Date of Hearing-29/03/2017

S. No. File No RTI Date1. CIC/CC/A/2016/000940/SD 29.06.20152. CIC/CC/A/2016/000953/SD 29.06.20153. CIC/CC/A/2016/000941/SD 29.06.20154. CIC/CC/A/2016/000954/SD 29.06.20155. CIC/CC/A/2016/000955/SD 29.06.20156. CIC/CC/A/2016/000933/SD 29.06.20157. CIC/CC/A/2016/000930/SD 29.06.20158. CIC/CC/A/2016/000951/SD 29.06.20159. CIC/CC/A/2016/000931/SD 29.06.201510. CIC/CC/A/2016/000935/SD 29.06.201511. CIC/CC/A/2016/000950/SD 29.06.201512. CIC/CC/A/2016/000949/SD 29.06.201513. CIC/CC/A/2016/000939/SD 29.06.201514. CIC/CC/A/2016/000944/SD 29.06.201515. CIC/CC/A/2016/000948/SD 29.06.201516. CIC/CC/A/2016/000947/SD 29.06.201517. CIC/CC/A/2016/000945/SD 29.06.201518. CIC/CC/A/2015/001398/SD 04.07.201419. CIC/CC/A/2015/001397/SD 04.07.201420. CIC/CC/A/2015/001396/SD 04.07.201421. CIC/CC/A/2015/001395/SD 04.07.201422. CIC/CC/A/2015/001394/SD 04.07.201423. CIC/CC/A/2015/001399/SD 04.07.201424. CIC/CC/A/2016/000942/SD 29.06.2015

Page 64: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

64

25. CIC/CC/A/2016/000943/SD 29.06.201526. CIC/CC/A/2016/000952/SD 29.06.201527. CIC/CC/A/2016/000904/SD 29.06.201528. CIC/CC/A/2016/000895/SD 29.06.201529. CIC/CC/A/2016/000887/SD 29.06.201530. CIC/CC/A/2016/000888/SD 29.06.201531. CIC/CC/A/2016/000958/SD 29.06.201532. CIC/CC/A/2016/000959/SD 29.06.201533. CIC/CC/A/2016/000960/SD 29.06.201534. CIC/CC/A/2016/000894/SD 29.06.201535. CIC/CC/A/2016/000905/SD 29.06.201536. CIC/CC/A/2016/000957/SD 29.06.201537. CIC/CC/A/2016/000956/SD 29.06.201538. CIC/CC/A/2016/000890/SD 29.06.201539. CIC/CC/A/2016/000863/SD 29.06.201540. CIC/CC/A/2016/000886/SD 29.06.201541. CIC/CC/A/2016/000889/SD 29.06.201542. CIC/CC/A/2016/000893/SD 29.06.201543. CIC/CC/A/2016/000892/SD 29.06.201544. CIC/CC/A/2016/000891/SD 29.06.201545. CIC/CC/A/2016/000999/SD 23.06.201546. CIC/CC/A/2016/000857/SD 23.06.201547. CIC/CC/A/2016/000856/SD 23.06.201548. CIC/CC/A/2016/000855/SD 23.06.201549. CIC/CC/A/2016/000854/SD 23.06.201550. CIC/CC/A/2016/000853/SD 23.06.201551. CIC/CC/A/2016/000734/SD 23.06.201552. CIC/CC/A/2016/000726/SD 23.06.201553. CIC/CC/A/2016/000691/SD 23.06.201554. CIC/CC/A/2016/000686/SD 23.06.201555. CIC/CC/A/2016/000683/SD 23.06.201556. CIC/CC/A/2016/000682/SD 23.06.201557. CIC/CC/A/2016/000681/SD 23.06.201558. CIC/CC/A/2016/000680/SD 23.06.201559. CIC/CC/A/2016/000689/SD 23.06.201560. CIC/CC/A/2016/000679/SD 23.06.201561. CIC/CC/A/2016/000677/SD 23.06.201562. CIC/CC/A/2016/000651/SD 23.06.201563. CIC/RK/A/2016/000107/SD 23.06.201564. CIC/CC/A/2014/002138/SD 10.07.201465. CIC/CC/A/2015/000291/SD 16.09.201466. CIC/CC/A/2015/000244/SD 16.09.201467. CIC/CC/A/2015/000290/SD 16.09.201468. CIC/CC/A/2015/000292/SD 16.09.201469. CIC/CC/A/2015/000293/SD 16.09.201470. CIC/CC/A/2015/000297/SD 16.09.201471. CIC/CC/A/2015/000299/SD 16.09.201472. CIC/CC/A/2015/000300/SD 16.09.201473. CIC/CC/A/2016/000875/SD 29.06.201574. CIC/CC/A/2016/000873/SD 29.06.201575. CIC/CC/A/2016/000754/SD 29.06.201576. CIC/CC/A/2016/000756/SD 29.06.201577. CIC/CC/A/2016/000757/SD 29.06.2015

Page 65: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

65

78. CIC/CC/A/2016/000874/SD 29.06.201579. CIC/CC/A/2016/000872/SD 29.06.201580. CIC/CC/A/2016/000749/SD 29.06.201581. CIC/CC/A/2016/000738/SD 29.06.201582. CIC/CC/A/2016/000736/SD 29.06.201583. CIC/CC/A/2016/000877/SD 29.06.201584. CIC/CC/A/2016/000735/SD 29.06.201585. CIC/CC/A/2016/000753/SD 29.06.201586. CIC/CC/A/2016/000752/SD 29.06.201587. CIC/CC/A/2016/000751/SD 29.06.201588. CIC/CC/A/2016/000750/SD 29.06.201589. CIC/CC/A/2015/000257/SD 10.09.201490. CIC/CC/A/2015/000243/SD 10.09.201491. CIC/CC/A/2015/000239/SD 10.09.201492. CIC/CC/A/2015/000165/SD 10.09.201493. CIC/CC/A/2014/002504/SD 01.08.201494. CIC/CC/A/2016/000755/SD 29.06.201595. CIC/RK/A/2016/000047/SD 23.06.201596. CIC/RK/A/2016/000046/SD 23.06..201597. CIC/RK/A/2016/000044/SD 23.06.201598. CIC/RK/A/2016/000041/SD 23.06.201599. CIC/RK/A/2016/000037/SD 23.06.2015100. CIC/RK/A/2016/000036/SD 23.06.2015101. CIC/RK/A/2016/000035/SD 23.06.2015102. CIC/RK/A/2016/000034/SD 23.06.2015103. CIC/RK/A/2016/000033/SD 23.06.2015104. CIC/RK/A/2016/000051/SD 23.06.2015105. CIC/RK/A/2016/000049/SD 23.06.2015106. CIC/RK/A/2016/000050/SD 23.06.2015107. CIC/CC/A/2014/002165/SD 10/07/2014108. CIC/RK/A/2016/000048/SD 23.06.2015109. CIC/CC/A/2015/001337/SD 08.09.2014110. CIC/CC/A/2015/001336/SD 08.09.2014111. CIC/CC/A/2015/001335/SD 08.09.2014112. CIC/CC/A/2015/001341/SD 08.09.2014113. CIC/CC/A/2015/001339/SD 08.09.2014114. CIC/CC/A/2015/001340/SD 08.09.2014115. CIC/RK/A/2016/000133/SD 23.06.2015116. CIC/RK/A/2016/000131/SD 23.06.2015117. CIC/RK/A/2016/000128/SD 23.06.2015118. CIC/RK/A/2016/000092/SD 23.06.2015119. CIC/RK/A/2016/000094/SD 23.06.2015120. CIC/RK/A/2016/000091/SD 23.06.2015121. CIC/RK/A/2016/000565/SD 23.06.2015122. CIC/CC/A/2015/000212/SD 16.09.2014123. CIC/CC/A/2015/001324/SD 16.09.2014124. CIC/CC/A/2015/001334/SD 16.09.2014125. CIC/CC/A/2015/001325/SD 16.09.2014126. CIC/CC/A/2015/001318/SD 16.09.2014127 CIC/CC/A/2015/001333/SD 16.09.2014128 CIC/CC/A/2015/001317/SD 16.09.2014129 CIC/RK/A/2016/000089/SD 23.06.2015130 CIC/RK/A/2016/000093/SD 23.06.2015

Page 66: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

66

131 CIC/RK/A/2016/000038/SD 23.06.2015132 CIC/RK/A/2016/000090/SD 23.06.2015133 CIC/RK/A/2016/000039/SD 23.06.2015134 CIC/CC/A/2015/001100/SD 06.09.2014135 CIC/CC/A/2015/004566/SD 23.06.2015136 CIC/CC/A/2015/004587/SD 23.06.2015137 CIC/CC/A/2015/004553/SD 23.06.2015138 CIC/CC/A/2015/004585/SD 23.06.2015139 CIC/CC/A/2015/004555/SD 23.06.2015140 CIC/CC/A/2015/004564/SD 23.06.2015141 CIC/CC/A/2015/004572/SD 23.06.2015142 CIC/CC/A/2015/004583/SD 23.06.2015143 CIC/CC/A/2015/004567/SD 23.06.2015144 CIC/CC/A/2015/004598/SD 23.06.2015145 CIC/CC/A/2015/004562/SD 23.06.2015146 CIC/CC/A/2015/004622/SD 23.06.2015147 CIC/CC/A/2015/004570/SD 23.06.2015148 CIC/CC/A/2015/004557/SD 23.06.2015149 CIC/VS/A/2015/002311/SD 29.06.2015150 CIC/VS/A/2015/002323/SD 29.06.2015151 CIC/VS/A/2015/002306/SD 09.06.2015152 CIC/VS/A/2015/002298/SD 13.08.2015153 CIC/VS/A/2015/002297/SD 29.06.2015154 CIC/VS/A/2015/002294/SD 29.06.2015155 CIC/VS/A/2015/002313/SD 29.06.2015156 CIC/VS/A/2015/002308/SD 29.06.2015157 CIC/VS/A/2015/002309/SD 29.06.2015158 CIC/VS/A/2015/002315/SD 29.06.2015159 CIC/VS/A/2015/002312/SD 29.06.2015160 CIC/VS/A/2015/002310/SD 29.06.2015161 CIC/VS/A/2015/002291/SD 29.06.2015162 CIC/VS/A/2015/002314/SD 29.06.2015163 CIC/VS/A/2015/002301/SD 29.06.2015164 CIC/CC/A/2015/000800/SD 16.09.2014165 CIC/CC/A/2015/000893/SD 16.09.2014166 CIC/CC/A/2015/000398/SD 28.08.2014167 CIC/YA/A/2015/001250/SD 10.09.2014168 CIC/CC/A/2016/000300/SD 29.06.2015169 CIC/CC/A/2016/000358/SD 29.06.2015170 CIC/CC/A/2016/000743/SD 23.06.2015171 CIC/CC/A/2016/000740/SD 23.06.2015172 CIC/CC/A/2016/000746/SD 23.06.2015173 CIC/CC/A/2016/000885/SD 23.06.2015174 CIC/CC/A/2016/000884/SD 23.06.2015175 CIC/CC/A/2016/000883/SD 23.06.2015176 CIC/CC/A/2016/000882/SD 23.06.2015177 CIC/CC/A/2016/000881/SD 23.06.2015178 CIC/CC/A/2016/000879/SD 23.06.2015179 CIC/CC/A/2016/000878/SD 23.06.2015180 CIC/CC/A/2016/000744/SD 23.06.2015181 CIC/CC/A/2016/000742/SD 23.06.2015182 CIC/CC/A/2015/001673/SD 01.09.2014183 CIC/CC/A/2015/000809/SD 01.09.2014

Page 67: Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force ...dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-04-25... · Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 CENTRAL INFORMATION

Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force

67

184 CIC/RK/A/2016/000473/SD 23.06.2015185 CIC/RK/A/2016/000476/SD 23.06.2015186 CIC/RK/A/2016/000457/SD 23.06.2015187 CIC/VS/A/2015/002307/SD 29.06.2015188 CIC/RK/A/2016/000469/SD 23.06.2015189 CIC/RK/A/2016/000468/SD 23.06.2015190 CIC/RK/A/2016/000466/SD 23.06.2015191 CIC/RK/A/2016/000465/SD 23.06.2015192 CIC/RK/A/2016/000463/SD 23.06.2015193 CIC/RK/A/2016/000461/SD 23.06.2015194 CIC/RK/A/2016/000458/SD 23.06.2015195 CIC/RK/A/2016/000459/SD 23.06.2015196 CIC/RK/A/2016/000295/SD 23.06.2015197 CIC/RM/A/2014/002213/SD 03.02.2014198 CIC/CC/A/2016/000348/SD 29.06.2015199 CIC/CC/A/2016/000301/SD 29.06.2015200 CIC/CC/A/2016/000359/SD 29.06.2015201 CIC/CC/A/2016/000303/SD 29.06.2015202 CIC/CC/A/2016/000360/SD 29.06.2015203 CIC/CC/A/2015/001338/SD


Recommended