ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Name and designation of employees In-charge and JWM of FMS section required.

(ii) The employees working in EFA/FMS section viz. Machinist, Fitter, Turner, electrician are doing their trade work only. If so the details are required as information.

(iii) How many employees are working in EFA/FMS section Head Group I. Their Name and Designation are required.

(iv) Name and designation of In-charge of Head group-I of FMS/EFA and his tenure of working.

(v) Attendance record of EFA/FMS Head group I from 01-01-2022 to 17-05-2023 are required , etc./ other related information 2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) The required copies can be provided on payment of Rs. 6/- (Rupees Six only) (Rs.2*3 pages).

(ii) The information cannot be disclosed as per RTI Act Section 8 (d).

(iii) The information cannot be disclosed as per RTI Act Section 8 (d).

(iv) Incharge of Head Group I is Shri E. Shankar, JWM, since Nov 2022.

(v) The information cannot be disclosed as per RTI Act Section 8 (d).

Etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.08.2023 observed as under:

Point no. (ii): The employees with different trades are working in FMS section in relevant to the required output and - work load. If the details are disclosed it will harm the competitive position of a third party (working individuals) Point no. (iii) & (v): In FMS section, as per work load, the employees will be detailed in each group and the manpower strength will be changed time to time. The section will work as a whole to produce the engine components. If the details are disclosed it will harm the competitive position of a third party (working individuals) etc .

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.12.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Atul Khare, General Manager and Shri K. Shankar, Joint General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the respondent in response to point nos (ii), (iii) (v), (vi), (xi) of the RTI application was incorrect and misleading. He argued that the information sought by him i.e. attendance register and daily log-book register of employees/workers and information related to their SOP of work manuals cannot be denied under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. He contended that the work-related information of the workers ought to be disclosed under provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was issued a charge sheet on 23.05.2023. The CPIO further contended that the appellant had filed an RTI application with the motive to gather evidence as defence in his case. He explained that Armoured Vehicles Nigam Limited was an OFB (Ordnance Factory Board) under Ministry of Defence. The employees with different trades are working in FMS section according to the required output and work load, hence, the manpower strength shall be changed from time to time. Besides, the section works as a whole is required to produce the engine components and in case the details were disclosed, it would have harmed its competitive position. Therefore, the information was exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.

8.

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant had inter alia sought details of other emp