WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 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
:
Respondent(s)
:
Wg. Cdr Sanjeev Sharma (Retd) Advocate (P/863/2013) Punjab & Haryana High Court 2149, Jalvayu Vihar Sector – 67, Mohali – 160062 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 1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force South Western Air Command, IAF Sec.9, Gandhinagar, Gujarat- 382009 CPIO Training Command, IAF J C Nagar, Bengaluru-560006 CPIO Maintenance Command, IAF Vayusena Nagar, Nagpur- 440007
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SHRI DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA 1. The present set of Appeals (1282 in number) arise out of RTI Applications filed by the Appellant against different Commands of Indian Air Force and it has been decided to adjudicate upon the Appeals by putting same subject matters under one head (which may or may not have the same date of RTI Application) and have been listed for hearings in different bunches. This has been done after taking into consideration the fact that these RTI Applications are seeking the same information but in the context of different Air Commands, yet the basic contentions and relief sought in Appeal would be suited for a composite listing of the matters in order to cut down on the time and resources invested in adjudicating 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 2
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
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 filed Command wise: S.N o
Air Com mand (s) & Air HQ
1. WAC
No. of RTI Appl icati on(s ) filed 9 3 3 2 1 113 1 94 83 5 1 1 1 1 65 1
Date of RTI CPIO Reply Application
First Appeal filed on
FAA order Second dated Appeal filed on
01/08/2014 14/08/2014 27/01/2014 30/01/2014 08/08/2014 23/06/2015 02/07/2014 29/06/2015 25/05/2015 04/09/2014 13/09/2014 03/09/2014 25/07/2014 05/09/2014 30/04/2015 28/01/2014
01/09/2014 07/10/2014 03/03/2014 03/03/2014 01/09/2014 13/08/2015 02/08/2014 13/08/2015 27/07/2015 27/10/2014 27/10/2014 27/10/2014 01/09/2014 27/10/2014 03/07/2015 03/03/2014
No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order
14/08/2014 No reply 21/03/2014 No reply 14/08/2014 29/07/2015 17/07/2014 06/08/2015 03/07/2015 No reply No reply No reply 14/08/2014 No reply 08/06/2015 No reply 3
20/10/2014 06/01/2015 16/08/2014 29/04/2014 20/10/2014 30/09/2015 04/10/2014 30/09/2015 21/09/2015 26/12/2014 26/12/2014 26/12/2014 20/10/2014 26/12/2014 31/08/2015 05/05/2014
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 19 10 1 1 1 11 2 3 5 1 2 2 4 1 5 2 2 1 1 3
17/09/2014 24/10/2014 12/09/2014 20/07/2014 01/02/2014 30/08/2014 29/08/2014 10/09/2014 01/08/2014 09/01/2014 13/01/2014 04/06/2014 06/01/2014 09/03/2014 25/10/2014 20/01/2015 16/09/2014 28/08/2014 03/02/2014 02/02/2014
No reply No reply No reply 14/08/2014 No reply No reply No reply 05/11/2014 17/08/2014 07/02/2014 07/02/2014 17/07/2014 07/02/2014 16/04/2014 No reply No reply No reply No reply No reply No reply
27/10/2014 01/12/2014 27/10/2014 01/09/2014 06/03/2014 27/10/2014 27/10/2014 02/12/2014 27/09/2014 13/02/2014 17/02/2014 02/08/2014 10/02/2014 17/05/2014 01/12/2014 14/03/2015 27/10/2014 27/10/2014 01/03/2014 06/03/2014
No order No order No order No order No order No order No order 09/01/2015 No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order No order
26/12/2014 20/01/2015 26/12/2014 20/10/2014 04/07/2014 26/12/2014 26/12/2014 07/04/2015 06/01/2015 02/06/2014 02/06/2014 10/10/2014 30/05/2014 27/09/2014 20/01/2015 12/05/2015 29/12/2014 26/12/2014 29/04/2014 02/07/2014
2. CAC
6 12 44 1 1 1
04/04/2015 25/04/2015 23/06/2015 21/09/2014 22/09/2014 09/07/2014
No reply No reply No reply 03/11/2014 14/01/2015 13/08/2014
05/05/2015 24/06/2015 24/08/2015 20/12/2014 18/11/2014 06/09/2014
No order No order No order No order No order 07/10/2014
24/08/2015 24/08/2015 29/10/2015 25/04/2015 21/03/2015 10/01/2015
3. EAC
7 118 1 31 4 41 1
04/07/2014 29/06/2015 01/09/2014 07/04/2015 21/09/2014 25/05/2015 28/07/2014
05/08/2014 No reply 13/10/2014 28/04/2015 14/01/2015 26/06/2015 28/08/2014
06/09/2014 03/08/2015 12/11/2014 12/05/2015 18/11/2014 01/08/2015 20/09/2014
18/10/2014 No order 14/01/2015 No order No order No order 18/10/2014
20/01/2015 29/10/2015 21/03/2015 31/08/2015 21/03/2015 29/10/2015 20/01/2015
4. SAC
22 27
29/06/2015 06/08/2015 12/08/2015 16/09/2015 24/12/2015 18/05/2015 27/07/2015 12/08/2015 16/09/2015 24/12/2015
5. SWAC
1 82 11 2 4 39
07/09/2014 23/06/2015 04/04/2015 24/10/2014 17/09/2014 25/05/2015
27/10/2014 No reply No reply No reply 27/10/2014 No reply 4
15/11/2014 24/08/2015 05/05/2015 01/12/2014 15/11/2014 22/07/2015
22/12/2014 No order No order 22/12/2014 22/12/2014 No order
17/01/2015 29/10/2015 24/08/2015 20/01/2015 17/01/2015 29/10/2015
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 1 8 2 2 6
12/09/2014 08/09/2014 25/10/2014 06/09/2014 16/09/2014
27/10/2014 27/10/2014 No reply 27/10/2014 27/10/2014
15/11/2014 15/11/2014 01/12/2014 15/11/2014 15/11/2014
22/12/2014 22/12/2014 22/12/2014 22/12/2014 22/12/2014
17/01/2015 17/01/2015 20/01/2015 17/01/2015 17/01/2015
6. TC
71 11 7 1 2
23/06/2015 30/08/2014 29/08/2014 13/09/2014 01/09/2014
31/07/2015 06/10/2014 06/10/2014 27/10/2014 06/10/2014
10/08/2015 20/10/2014 20/10/2014 15/11/2014 20/10/2014
16/09/2015 24/11/2014 24/11/2014 09/01/2015 24/11/2014
23/11/2015 06/01/2015 06/01/2015 21/03/2015 06/01/2015
7. MC
58 15 1 3 8 60 20 25 1 39 8 1 4 2 9
29/06/2015 10/09/2014 01/09/2014 01/08/2014 13/09/2014 23/06/2015 07/04/2015 17/09/2014 24/10/2014 25/05/2015 12/09/2014 28/07/2014 10/02/2015 10/07/2014 16/09/2014
29/07/2015 21/10/2014 17/09/2014 17/09/2014 21/10/2014 28/07/2015 12/05/2015 21/10/2014 24/11/2014 12/06/2015 21/10/2014 17/09/2014 03/03/2015 07/08/2014 21/10/2014
05/08/2015 01/11/2014 27/09/2014 27/09/2014 01/11/2014 03/08/2015 16/06/2015 01/11/2014 03/12/2014 03/07/2015 01/11/2014 27/09/2014 21/03/2015 16/08/2014 01/11/2014
No order 27/11/2014 30/10/2014 30/10/2014 No order No order 22/07/2015 27/11/2014 19/01/2015 10/08/2015 27/11/2014 30/10/2014 No order 12/09/2014 27/11/2014
07/12/2015 22/12/2014 12/11/2014 12/11/2014 22/12/2014 07/12/2015 02/09/2015 22/12/2014 10/02/2015 02/09/2015 22/12/2014 12/11/2014 18/05/2015 30/09/2014 22/12/2014
4. Following are the details of different dates of hearing along with the number of Appeals heard and broad area of subject matters covered: S.No Date of Concerned No. of . Hearing Respondent Appeals heard & Annexures 1 25.11.2016 WAC 39 [Annex.1(1)] 2 16.12.2016 WAC 73 [Annex.1(2)]
3
20.12.2016
CAC
24 5
No. of broad matters covered
subject
CSD, Air Force School, AOC/CO funds, PSI Ventures SNCO Mess, Air Force Hospital, AOC/CO, CPIO/APIO/PIO/FAA, Movable/Immovable assets, AFWWA AOC/CO, CSD/URC, Annual
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force [Annex.1(3)]
4
23.12.2016
CAC
5
05.01.2017
WAC
6
12.01.2017
7
22.03.2017
8
23.03.2017
9
24.03.2017
10
28.03.2017
11
29.03.2017
28 [Annex.1(4)]
28 [Annex.1(5)] WAC 46 [Annex.1(6)] WAC, CAC, 244 EAC, SAC, [Annex.1(7)] SWAC, TC & MC WAC, EAC, 190 SAC, SWAC [Annex.1(8)] & MC WAC, CAC, EAC, SAC, SWAC, TC & MC WAC, CAC, EAC, SAC, SWAC, TC & MC
308 [Annex.1(9)]
Commanders Conference, Farewell Parties, C ADM O, Officer’s residence Officers Mess, Trees, CPIO/APIO/FAA, AFWWA, PSI Ventures PSI Ventures, SNCO Mess CPIO/APIO/FAA, CSD/URC AOC/CO Funds, AFWWA, Farewell Parties, Residence of Officers, Income & Expenditure Annual Commanders conference, CPIO/APIO/FAA details, Census of Trees & Wild Animals SNCO Mess, Officers Mess, Airmen & DSC Mess & their income and expenditure
99 Movable/Immovable assets, [Annex.1(10) Farewell Parties, Residence ] of CADMO, Income & expenditure of NPFs & Air Force Schools, disposal of personal applications WAC, CAC, 203 PSI Ventures, NPFs income EAC, SAC, [Annex.1(11) & expenditure, CSD/URC SWAC, TC & ] MC
5. The following parties were present on different dates of hearing: S.No. Date of Parties Hearing 1 25.11.2016 Appellant: Present in person. Respondent: Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu, CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present in person. 6
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 2
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9.
10.
11.
16.12.2016 Appellant: Present on phone. Respondent: Wg Cdr R.S. Pabla, CPIO and Cpl A. Madhwan, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present in person. 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. 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. 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. 12.01.2017 Appellant: Not Present. Respondent: Wg Cdr R.S. Pabla, CPIO, HQ WAC, IAF, New Delhi present in person. 22.03.2017 Appellant: Not present. Respondent: Represented by Wg. Cdr D Anil Kumar, CPIO, Wg Cdr M Parajpey, IHQ of MoD(Air) and Sqn Ldr S.S. Elamurugu, CPIO, HQ WAC IAF, New Delhi present in person. 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. 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). 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 on phone.(Written submission brought by MWO S.C. Sharma, Air HQ, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi) 29.03.2017 Appellant: Not present (confirmed by Rohit, VC 7
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 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 on phone.(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 from various Air Commands : S.No Information Sought in various versions under different subject matters. i. AOC/CO CONTINGENCY FUND The Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO Contingency Fund in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers incharge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information The Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO Contingency Fund in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers incharge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there and any other relevant information. ii.
AIR FORCE WIVES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (L) The Appellant sought information regarding AFWWA (L) in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 8
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information iii.
TREES/FOREST/WILD ANIMALS The Appellant sought information regarding number of trees in the area of operation of Air Force Stations from 01.01.1995 to 31.08.2014, how many trees have been cut/fallen/pruned deliberately/by natural reasons along with file noting(s) & policies, how much money spent and earned from this, where is it deposited, who are the approving authorities for the expenditure, who has taken permission from the Forest Department, copy of approval and applications, how many combatant/civilians are working on this job, if they are paid honorarium etc, if trees are not cut, will it affect operations. The Appellant sought information regarding number of wild animals in the area of operation of Air Force Units from 01.01.1995 to 20.10.2014, how many animals have been killed/died deliberately/by natural reasons along with file noting(s) & policies, how many guns/bullets have been used on this, who are the approving authorities for this, who has taken permission from the Wildlife Department, copy of approval and applications, how many combatant/civilians are working on this job, if they are paid honorarium etc, if animal/birds are not killed, will it affect operations.
iv.
SNCO MESS/OFFICER’S MESS/AIRMEN MESS/DSC MESS The Appellant sought information regarding SNCOs Mess of Air Force Units & Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers incharge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information The Appellant sought information regarding SNCOs Mess of Air Force Units & Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water & 9
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information. The Appellant sought information regarding Officer’s Mess of Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers incharge of past three years, how many combatants/civilians working there and any other relevant information. The Appellant sought information regarding Airmen & DSC Messes of 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 between 01.08.2014 and 24.05.2015, members of the managing committee of past three years, whether they are IAF officers or private/civilians, how much money is charged by each airman & DSC person living there, how much ration was under drawn, sold during 01.08.2014 and 24.05.2015, how many combatants/civilians working there etc., and any other relevant information. The Appellant sought information regarding Airmen & DSC Messes of 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 between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee of past three years, whether they are IAF officers or private/civilians, how much money is charged by each airman & DSC person living there, how much ration was under drawn, sold during 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, how many combatants/civilians working there etc., and any other relevant information. v.
DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL APPLICATIONS The Appellant sought disposal of his applications dated 08.04.2011, 10
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 28.03.2011, 21.03.2011, 28.02.2011 regarding withdrawal of VSM from Air Vice Marshal P K Srivastava. The Appellant sought disposal of his application dated 01/10/2010 regarding interview with Director General (Inspection & Safety) on 01.10.2010. The Appellant sought disposal of his applications dated 18.01.2010, 09.02.2010 regarding disciplinary action against Air Vice Marshal P K Srivastava. The Appellant sought disposal of his applications dated 17.02.2011 and 31.03.2011 regarding ROG against Gp. Capt. AK Sen. The Appellant sought disposal of his 5 applications dated 31.01.2011, 07.03.2011, 11.03.2011, 31.01.2011 regarding various issues. The Appellant sought disposal of his application dated 07.03.2011 regarding initiating disciplinary action against Air Vice Marshal P K Srivastava. vi.
MOVABLE/IMMOVABLE ASSET DECLARATION The Appellant sought information regarding how many Officers/Airmen/NC(E) of Air Force Station(s) have purchased Flats/houses/land/Cars/two wheelers between the period of 21.10.2014 to 24.05.2015, how many of them took loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after approval of AOC/CO, how many of them reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000, what action has been taken against those who have not reported the same, who is the competent authority to take action against these officers. The Appellant sought information regarding how many Officers/Airmen/NC(E) of Air Force Station(s) have purchased personal computers/laptops from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014 in absolute numbers as well as percentage of the whole, how many of them took loan from AFGIS/IAFBA after approval of AOC/CO, how many of them reported the purchase as per AFO 20 of 2000, what action has been taken against those who have not reported the same, who is the competent authority to take action against these 11
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force officers. He sought similar information regarding purchase of Flats/houses/land/Cars/two wheelers other expensive items beyond the time limit as prescribed in AFO 20/2000 for which permission reporting is mandatory, from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014, how many of them took loan from provident fund for the after approval of AOC/CO etc. vii.
OFFICER’S RESIDENCE The Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO residence of Air Force Stations 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 between 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, authorities for approving the expenditure of public/non public funds whether govt officers or private, who has been the AOC-in-C for last 20 years, if he is a public authority and is authorised to accept gifts etc. from Non-Public Funds, how many such items are there is his residence, how many air-conditioners etc, how much was the electricity bill from 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, how many parties were organised at this conference by taken money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, how many combatants/civilians working there, if they get honorarium etc. The Appellant sought information regarding AOC/CO residence of Air Force Units in terms of on which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, who are the approving authorities for the expenditure with file noting(s) & policies, who has been the AOC/CO for last three years, whether AOC/CO, is he authorized to accept donations, gifts etc, how much was the electricity bill for the same period, how many parties have been organised at the residence by taking help of the Non-public funds, if civilians/combatants are working, whether they get their salary from government funds etc. The Appellant sought information regarding residence of C ADM O of Air Force Stations and Institute of Flight Safety (IFS) in terms of on which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the 12
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, members of the managing committee & officers incharge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information He also sought similar aforesaid information regarding SOA, HQ CAC residence. The Appellant sought information regarding residences of various officers 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 between 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, authorities for approving the expenditure of public/non public funds whether govt officers or private, who has been the AOC-in-C for last 20 years, if he is a public authority and is authorised to accept gifts etc. from Non-Public Funds, how many such items are there is his residence, how many air-conditioners etc, how much was the electricity bill from 01.01.1996 and 31.12.2014, how many parties were organised at this conference by taken money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, how many combatants/civilians working there, if they get honorarium etc. viii.
PRESIDENT SERVICE INSTITUTE The Appellant sought information regarding PSI Office & its ventures of Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, who pays water & electricity bill, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information The Appellant sought information regarding PSI Office & its ventures of Air Force Stations in terms of on which land (private or 13
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers incharge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information. ix.
UNIT RUN CANTEEN/CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air Force Stations & Units in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.08.2014 and 21.06.2015, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.08.2014 to 21.06.2015 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information. The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air Force Stations & Units in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information. The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, income expenditure from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2009 with file noting(s) & policies and any other relevant information. The Appellant sought information regarding CSD of Air Force 14
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force Stations in terms of which land (private or government) it is built on, area of the land, money spent on maintenance/new constructions between 01.01.2011 and 31.07.2014, members of the managing committee & officers in-charge of past three years, whether they get their salary from government funds, how many combatants/civilians working there, if they get honorarium etc. and any other relevant information. x.
CPIO/APIO/PIO/FAA The Appellant sought information regarding who have been the CPIO/PIO/APIO/FAA from 11.09.2014 to 24.05.2015 of Air Force Stations and of AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency, CSD Canteen, PSI Office, AFWWA(Local) and CWF of the unit, their address and details, name of approving authority of their appointment, whom do they hand over charges while going on leave, copy of handing over/taking over register, action taken against them for not handing over charges, where are these details published, if not published what action has been initiated, how many combatant civilians are working in RTI Cells and if they get honorarium for the same.
xi.
ANNUAL COMMANDER’S CONFERENCE The Appellant sought information regarding expenditure from Air Force Stations on Annual Commanders Conference from 01/01/1996 to 31/12/2014, AOC/CO from the Station who attended conference, authorities for approving the expenditure of public/non public funds whether govt officers or private, how many parties were organised at this conference by taken money/manpower/crockery etc from NPFs during this period, how many combatants/civilians were working here and related matter.
xii.
AIR FORCE SCHOOLS The Appellant sought information regarding income & expenditure along with policies and file noting(s) for the period of 01.01.2011 to 30.11.2013 of Air Force Schools.
xiii.
FAREWELL PARTIES The Appellant sought information regarding farewell parties to AOC/CO of Air Force Stations and Air Force Hospital, in terms of 15
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force who was the AOC/CO from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014, how much expenditure was done on the conduct of the farewell parties from various funds , venue of these parties, who was the AOC/CO who attended the parties, if his wife also attended it, if so, on what authority, what was the purpose, if she did so by being a private citizen or a public authority, did she receive gifts in the parties, source of these gifts, who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non-public funds, file noting(s) etc on the approval of expenditure and the amount of money spent, how many parties were organised by taking money from non-public funds, how many combatants/civilians were working there, if they were paid honorariums etc. The Appellant sought information regarding farewell parties to SASO of various HQs, in terms of who was the SASO from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2014, how much expenditure was done on the conduct of the farewell parties from various funds , venue of these parties, who was the SASO who attended the parties, if his wife also attended it, if so, on what authority, what was the purpose, if she did so by being a private citizen or a public authority, did she receive gifts in the parties, source of these gifts, who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/nonpublic funds, file noting(s) etc on the approval of expenditure and the amount of money spent, how many parties were organised by taking money from non-public funds, how many combatants/civilians were working there, if they were paid honorariums etc. xiv.
INCOME & EXPENDITURE Income and expenditure of AOC/CO Contingency Fund, Officers Mess, SNCOs Mess, Air Force School, Gas Agency, CSD Canteen, PSI Office, AFWWA(Local) and CWF of Air Force Station, Belgaum with name of combatants/civilians working in them from 01/01/1995 to 15/09/2014, along with copies of policies and file noting.
7. SUBMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES: 7.1 Appellant’s submissions:
16
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force In the initial hearing of these Appeals, Appellant started out by giving a brief background 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 concerted step taken by the higher echelons of IAF to only frustrate the spirit of RTI Act and it is per force that he has been filing number of RTI Applications with only one CPIO. He admits that largely IAF has been doing well and that he was himself a proud part of it, yet there is a parallel economy running inside the fraternity and there are different sources of corruption. It is asserted that his primary intention is to fight corruption. He raises the issue of funds allocated in the name of non-public funds being misused for personal interests within the hierarchy and that it is used as a source of income generation with vested interests 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 i. AOC/CO contingency fund
ii.
Contentions Funds are raised from the profits of Unit Run Canteen, It is alleged that the AOC/CO office is right next to the AOC office and that signatures of officers are taken on blank papers to show expenditures, primarily contends that it should be a public authority in the backdrop of the requirements of being one as per RTI Act that is in terms of land, cost of construction, rent if any paid, income, who are the administrators of NPF, who are the members, secret telephones have been given for the functioning of NPF which in normal course is not provided to civilians, IAF charges rent for these secret telephones, governing rules are made by Air HQ, if the land is withdrawn, will the establishment still function?
Air Force Wives It is contended that whilst the Indian Air Force is Welfare short of manpower, yet combatants/officers are Association (L) deployed for assisting AFWWA in its functioning, he questioned if AFWWA is claimed to be a private venture are serving government servants allowed to work in private ventures also? If the honorarium provided to these official on account of performing 17
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
iii.
iv.
v. vi.
vii.
duties for AFWWA, gets reflected in their salary for the purpose of income tax return and since AFWWA if being a private venture has been using multiple IAF facilities for its smooth functioning, it amounts to anti-national activities. Trees/Forest/Wil It was stated that before cutting/uprooting trees, IAF d Animals has to take permission from the Forest Department, and that the Board of Officers take a decision on how many trees re to be cut and they have records of how many trees have been perished due to natural reasons, all details of money spent on maintenance of trees is available in the official file of the C ADM O, which is why he had sought for the information. SNCO’s Contribution is again taken from SNCOs, that there is Mess/Officer’s a misuse of manpower in as much as the MESS/Airmen & cooks/waiters posted to work in the Mess, instead DSC Mess work in the AOC residence. If all this involves non-public funds, then why are people in uniform working therein.
Disposal of applications Movable/Immov able asset declaration
NIL
Officer’s Residence
Appellant quoted several precedents to argue that these residences will be dysfunctional if government withdraws its land, funds etc. and on similar parameters the precedents have declared Air Force Sports Complex as public authority, JLM Fund as public authority.
That AFO 20 of 2000 requires that any acquisition of property must be reported and that he believes not even 10 cases exist wherein purchase has been reported. He insists that CPIO should give an affidavit clarifying whether or not they have records. He contends that CPIO’s claim of information pertaining to one officer and spread over 46 stations is false as he himself has handled these files while posted at WC and that the approving authority is WC and that there is only one file for all stations.
18
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force viii.
President Service They take contributions from Air Warriors who pay Institute monthly subscription, governing rules made by Air HQ, money/funds spent as per the whims and fancies of AOC, source of funds are URC profits and contribution, fund are misused for various purposes at the AOC residence. If all this involves non-public funds, then why are people in uniform working therein.
ix.
Unit Run Canteen/Cantee n Stores Department
x.
CPIO/APIO/PIO/F AA of some of the offices Annual Commander’s Conference
That it is fully under the control of Air Force as for drawing items from CSD request form has to be signed by the AOC, similarly land on which it functions, the amenities attached therein, salary of employees, everything is under the control of Air Force, even entry into URCs is also fully controlled.
xii.
He stated that he sought for this information to specifically know if this information is available in public domain or not. That the expenditure is done from both public and non-public funds yet no disclosure of the details is made by the CPIOs and this reeks of corruption and misappropriation of funds. Air Force Schools That the land belongs to Air Force, teachers are appointed by AF, rules made by AF, AOC is the chairman, OIC of the school has to clear all bills from Air HQ, accommodation of the teachers & staff provided in Air Force Areas, thus allowing civilians to stay in highly sensitive AF lands & quarters, they don’t take subsidy from government so as to evade the status of Public Authority.
xiii.
Farewell Parties
xiv.
Income Expenditure various NPFs
xi.
That the expenditure is done from both public and non-public funds yet no disclosure of the details is made by the CPIOs and this reeks of corruption and misappropriation of funds. & NIL of
19
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
It is pertinent to note that the Appellant attended only 5 of the 11 scheduled hearings, without intimating any reasons thereof despite being provided facility of Video Conferencing. The Appellant in addition to the specific subject wise contentions brought on record some general issues during the first five hearings. These submissions are summarised in the following paras: A. Appellant’s primary reservation was against the application of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act by the CPIOs claiming that RTI Act does not allow for denial of information under the said Section. It is insisted that most of the information he has sought pertain to singular files or single source of information. For instance, the policies he has sought although is for multiple establishments of Air Force, but there is only one policy, similarly, his question regarding how much money has been spent from Non-Public Funds remains same in almost all the RTI Applications which means there are only particular files held with particular office where records of expenditure is available. Further, for instance he says that information regarding purchase of movable/immovable assets is available in the personal files of officials which is not difficult to access, and that it is true that recommendations on purchase initiate from different Air Force Stations yet the approving authority is solely WAC, and that too, it consists of one file for each station and WAC has almost 50,000 Air warriors, and at the most 50 people are required to collect such information who in turn would need only two hours for collating the same. B. It is in this background, he contends that Section 7(9) is not at all a valid reason for the CPIO to evade providing the information. Since, information is not as scattered as it is made to appear, same can be easily provided. Yet the CPIOs are refraining from disclosure owing to the deep rooted corrupt practices involved in the execution of funds raised from the non-public fund ventures.
C. As an instance, he states that he is confident that there will not be even 10 cases where officers have asked for permission as per AFO orders prior to buying/possessing movable/immovable properties.
20
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force D. Appellant relied on Section 189 to 191 of Air Force Act, 1950 to state that Regulations for the Air Force, 1964 are statutory and further while relying on Rule 19 of Air Force Rules, 1969 he claimed that no permission is taken to become the member of Officers Mess and SNCO’s mess and that Indian Air Publication made by Air HQ is in force to regulate nonpublic funds which includes SNCOs/PSI etc. He submits that PSI/SNCOs etc. have statutory backing as they are brought by an Act of Parliament and as per rules combatants/officers automatically become member of these ventures, which is why these Messes are not private organisations, as for becoming a member of private organisation, sanction of Central Government is required as per Air Force Rules. Note: This particular contention of the Appellant was clarified by the CPIO by submitting the extract of these referred rules and stating that only Air Force Act, 1950 and Air Force Rules, 1969 are statutory and not the regulations for the Air Force, 1964 as these regulations were not published in the Gazette and as 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 sanction under Rule 19 is not required for any organisation that is recognised as part of Armed Forces. As the messes are a part of armed forces, permission is not required for becoming its member. Further, Para 1522 & 1548 of the Regulation for the Air Force provides that the officers and the SNCOs who are on the posted strength of the Station are the permanent members of the officer’s/SNCO’s mess of that station, Accordingly, no sanction is required to be the members of these messes. E. Appellant submitted that by seeking such multitude of information he aims to bring in transparency and accountability to the functioning of these ventures since it involves fiscal resources raised out of fees and subscriptions 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 to frame his RTI Application so that they do not have to deny information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. F. He has relied on the CIC order in CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 dated 06.01.2009 to justify his decision to file multiple RTI Applications with different Air Force Stations.
21
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 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 Sports Complex, Army Welfare Housing Complex and Jawahar Nehru Memorial Fund were decided to be as Public Authorities, respectively. He emphasised as to how the parameters for these authorities and the NonPublic Fund ventures claimed by the CPIO have to be looked at from the same perspective, and seeks that these ventures should also come under the definition of Public Authorities as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. H. Appellant also relied on Supreme Courts’s ratio decidendi in the case of Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi on what are the ‘’other authorities’’ contemplated in the definition of State in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. I. In furtherance of his contentions, he stated that in two other matters heard by the Commission in File Nos. CIC/VS/A/2015/002773/AB dated 11.11.2016 and CIC/RM/A/2014/001324/AB dated 28.07.2016 against one of the same set of Respondents, the CPIO was directed to file an affidavit declaring that relevant records are not available. In the present matters, Appellant wanted the CPIOs to be similarly directed for filing affidavits if information is claimed to be not available. J. Appellant strongly denounced the conduct of the First Appellate Authority of HQ WAC, in not having passed even a single order on his First Appeals. K. In response to the averments of the CPIOs regarding similar subject matters having been heard and decided by the Commission on a bunch of Appeals on 19.11.2015, Appellant asserted that some of their submissions in those matters were factually wrong regarding having provided information on some of the initial RTI Applications. L. It was also his contention that he has been constrained to file so many RTI Application with one CPIO, as there are only so many CPIOs in the Indian Air Force and additionally it is the fault of the CPIOs in not having transferred the RTI Application to appropriate authorities, leaving these RTI Applications to clog the functioning of the public authority. 22
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 7.2 Respondent’s submissions: Commission initially heard some of the Appeals, Command wise and subsequently, altered the procedure by listing all the Appeals pertaining to any Command together based on each subject matter. Accordingly, CPIO, Air HQs and CPIO, HQ WAC represented all the Command CPIOs alongwith written submissions. The submissions of the CPIOs during all the hearings are therefore put together as under: A. It is submitted that the Appellant proceeded on premature retirement from 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 which he was under treatment since the year 2007. While posted at 5 BRD (Sulur), Appellant had submitted numerous applications highlighting an incident which he has himself brought out in various applications, involving him in allegedly making offensive comments against officiating SAO of 5 BRD, subsequent to this incident, he has been filing various applications and almost 359 Redressal of Grievances (ROGs) alleging corruption against his superiors. It was after proceeding on premature retirement, 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 his perceived grievances as all his ROGs and other applications filed against the functioning of the Station Administration of the units where he was posted as well as the senior authorities were found to be devoid of merit. C. It is submitted that initially in respect of 137 RTI Applications, the information was provided by CPIO, WAC and some of these RTI Applications were transferred to CPIO, MC and other public authorities. After responding to almost 137 RTI Applications, when Appellant started filing RTI Applications in bulk which ranged from 50 to 100 at a time, he was replied that, disclosure of information was not feasible as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authorities as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. It is also contended that appellant’s one RTI Application was equivalent to 10 to 20 RTI Applications as each application sought numerous details.
23
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force D. It is submitted that the Appellant has put up approximately 6443 RTI Applications to various CPIOs of Indian Air Force and corresponding number of First Appeals and Second Appeals. The Appellant has submitted so many RTI Applications that he himself has lost count due to the repetitiveness. E. It is submitted that a total of 3588 Second Appeals were disposed earlier by CIC on 19.11.2015 which pertained to information sought of similar nature, and the CIC while allowing the Appeals had directed to provide some information. However, since the huge number of RTI Applications were extremely strenuous to process and were vexatious in nature, a Writ 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 has granted stay on the CIC order on 11.01.2017 based on their submissions of repetitiveness and voluminous number of RTI Applications seeking information which is not even readily available and would have to be collated and tabulated thereby resulting in the CPIOs devoting all their working hours for dealing only with the RTI Applications of the Appellant. F. It is submitted that in the intervening period from the date of the CIC order and the stay order, Appellant filed numerous RTI Applications again all over Indian Air Force, and these cover subject matters primarily pertaining to income and expenditure of various forms of Non-Public Funds 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 seeking withdrawal of Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM) from some officers; census of trees & wild animals; CPIO/FAA details of Air Force Stations and NonPublic Funds. G. It is submitted that in each RTI Application, applicant has asked for voluminous information which is not only cumbersome to compile but also is a burden to the organization and the numerous details sought therein were not readily available and compilation if attempted would disproportionately divert the resources of the organization, accordingly, information was denied under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further with regard to Non-Public ventures like AFWWA, PSI, Air Force Schools, CSD/URC, AOC/CO Contingency Fund, it is submitted that they do not fall 24
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 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 are not within the scope of the definition of ‘State’ as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and since NPFs do not fall within the purview of RTI Act, applications mentioned herein seeking such information were rejected. As regards the disposal of his personal applications, it is submitted that information as available with the public authority has been already provided and nothing further is available on record. It is also contended that particularly some batch of RTI Applications falling under the subject matters of Census of Trees, Wild Animals, Annual Commanders Conference, CPIO/PIO/FAA of Air Force Stations 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 and CIC/AT/A/2008/000125 dated 12.06.2008 wherein it was held that “...The Commission agrees that given the nature and tenor of the queries of the appellant these are clearly vexatious and frivolous, all aimed at making the respondents work overtime to furnish information to the appellant within the time-limit prescribed under the Act. Commission also agrees that answering this type of elaborate and detailed queries, which have to be both accurate and authentic and therefore needed repeated scrutiny, imposes heavy cost on the public authority and tends to divert its resources. This brings it within the scope of 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 the effect that “Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information” and further that “The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under 25
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.’’ J. It is also submitted that Appellant has sought vast information pertaining to many spheres and facets of IAF. Some information which although appears innocuous in isolation but collation and compilation of the same could form critical information pertaining to IAF which is detrimental to IAF/national security and therefore same has been denied under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. K. It is prayed that the Appeals be dismissed with heavy cost on the Appellant as the Appellant has been harnessing a vindictive approach towards the public authority and is causing unnecessary stress on the administrative machinery and hampering operational efficiency. An unreasonable demand of an individual on the resources of the State to pursue his own whims does not serve the requirements of democracy. L. In particular response to some of the Appellant’s averments, it was argued that they differ from the opinion of the Appellant that his RTI Applications seek almost similar data for different NPF ventures, it will not 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 whilst providing the information as there are multiple number of queries within one query and almost every RTI Application has more than 5 queries and they pertain to different records as is evident from the queries of the RTI Applications. As such, if information were to be collected and collated, it would have meant for the CPIO to leave his primary work profile.
8. COMMISSION’s FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS Based on the facts on record and averments of both the parties, following is deduced: 8.1.1 There are two versions to the basic crux of these Appeals, one of the Appellant who claims it is for venting the corrupt practices within the Air Force Establishments and to bring in transparency in the several Air Force ventures discussed above. The second is of the Respondents, who 26
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force claim that these RTI Applications arise out of Appellant’s vindictive intent, meant only to harass the public authority for perceived injustice meted out to him while in service. 8.1.2 A perusal of the content of the RTI Applications reflect more on the cumbersome way of framing these in having sought for ten kinds of information within a single query. The RTI Applications lack specifics and are framed in a question answer format in most places, providing information on which may practically require dwelling into records and ascertaining facts and figures, then collating it. 8.1.3 For instance, some of the RTI Application queries are reproduced here verbatim, 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 are the approving authorities for their appointment along with policies & file notings? When they go on leave or T/D, to whom did they hand over their charges? Please provide copies of handing /taking over registers & 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 been initiated against them? How many RTI Applications have been received & how many were not replied in time? Who were the officers responsible for this & what action has been taken against them? (d) How many combatants/civilians are working in RTI Cells? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt. law? (e) How many appeals have been disposed off to the satisfaction of applicants> (f) Any other relevant information (g) File notings of progress of this RTI.” In respect of HQ WAC:
27
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force “a. Who had been the AOC/CO of Air Force Station, Ambala from 01 Jan 1996 to 31 Dec 2014? How much was the expenditure on the conduct of their 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 also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or ACO/CO receive any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts? c. How much money has been spent on these parties from public/nonpublic funds, from 01 Jan 96 to 31 Dec 2014, along with policies & file notings. Who were the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private, with details & file notings? d. How many parties were organised by taking money/manpower/crockery etc. from NPFs, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/Law? How many combatants/civilians were working there? Are the combatants working there get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decided that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? 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? If this is govt. Land, how much money did it pay to govt to buy/lease/annual rent? b. How much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of AOC/CO residence from public/nom public funds, from 01 Jan 11 to 31 Jul 14, along with policies & file notings. Who are the
28
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
c.
d.
e. f. g.
approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether govt officers or private? Who has been the AOC/CO for the last three years? Whether AOC/CO is 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? How many 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 11 to 31 Jul 14? Who were the officers responsible to accept items from NPFs 7 what action has been taken against them? How many parties have been organized at AOC/CO (a public authority) residence by taking money/manpower/crockery etc from these NPFs during this period, whether this is permitted by any Act of Parliament/law? How many combatant/civilians are working here? Are the combatants working here get any honorarium & civilians any pay? Who decides that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? If this land is withdrawn by IAF/Govt., will the AOC/CO residence exist? Any other relevant information. File notings on progress of this RTI.”
8.1.4 At this point, it will be relevant to bring out the broad areas of information sought in the RTI Applications which were covered by the CIC order dated 19.11.2015 referred hereinabove, para 18 of the said order reads as under: “…18. Broadly, the information sought by may be divided into the following categories:−
the
appellant
(a) regarding various applications concerning the appellant, which were filed when he was in service. These applications can further be divided into the following sub− categories:− (i) redressal of grievance applications and other representations and subsequent reminders; (ii) applications against various higher authorities alleging corruption and misuse of their power and position and subsequent reminders;
29
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force (iii) applications seeking interviews with higher authorities and his subsequent reminders; (iv) applications seeking permissions for filing FIR and court case in the AFT and subsequent reminders; (v) applications seeking protection of life from some officers in the IAF and taking action against them and subsequent reminders; (vi) applications seeking information regarding his appraisal reports and subsequent reminders; (vii) applications requesting withdrawal of VSM from certain officers of the IAF and subsequent reminders; (viii) applications questioning the professional competence of an officer in the IAF and subsequent reminders; (ix) applications requesting for taking disciplinary action against officers of the IAF; (x) applications requesting for holding Court of Inquiry about an incident on 07.11.2008 between the appellant and an officer of the IAF and subsequent reminders; and (xi) applications intimating about anti−IAF acKvity at a parKcular station and subsequent reminders. (b) regarding non public fund ventures run by IAF. These applications can further be divided into various sub−categories of informaKon pertaining 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 30
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force (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’s submissions, a part of which is as under: ‘’…(xii) that some of the CPIOs of the IAF denied the information sought pertaining to Non Public Fund (NPF) ventures stating that such entities were not 'public authority' in terms of section 2(h) of the Act. Some CPIOs denied the information by quoting section 7(9) of the Act and some under 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 by the Air Force officers; (xiv) that many of the RTI applications belong to the same type of representations 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−Public Funds; (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 the concerned departments; (xv) that some senior officers host lavish personal gatherings out of the contingency fund of the IAF; ….” 8.1.6 A composite reading of the above two paras and the subject matters alongwith a brief study of the information sought in the RTI Applications referred in the present matter, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the subject matters raised herein have already been heard and decided by the Commission which largely makes the present Appeal devoid of any such merit which may warrant separate hearings or dwelling into each and every RTI Application. 8.1.7 Even further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) 205/2017 dated 11.01.2017 has stayed the operation of the directions given by the Commission in the order dated 19.11.2015. It follows then that there 31
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force cannot be any separate line of adjudication on the similar set of Appeals till 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 hand with the perspective of looking at its limited merit in terms of whether or not Appellant is justified in taking recourse to the channel of RTI Act in this particular manner and as to how the Respondents have dealt with the provisions of the RTI Act. 8.1.9 It was also observed from the course of several hearings that there is no apparent malafide intent in the conduct of the CPIOs while claiming information cannot be provided. CPIOs had expressed their support for providing whatever was possible and available if the Appellant had been atleast specific or had limited the subject matters. CPIO, WAC in one of the hearings even agreed to provide inspection of relevant records where Appellant can specify a particular subject. The basic argument being, there is nothing that CPIOs are intending to deliberately hide or evade from. 8.1.10 It may also be noted that a coordinate bench of the Commission has already heard and decided around 550 number of Appeals on 31.03.2017 on the same subject matters and set of RTI Applications.
9. Commission’s Analysis of the Respondents conduct in dealing with the multitude of RTI Applications: 9.1.1 CPIO, WAC has not responded on almost 10 set of RTI Applications filed on different dates, while for the remaining RTI Applications, largely Section 7(9) has been quoted and for specific ventures, Section 2(h) has been 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 matter being outside 2(h) of the RTI Act or not provided the information citing Section 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 already provided on similar RTI Applications or in case where information sought pertains to Non-Public Funds.
32
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 9.1.3 CPIO,MC has responded on all the RTI Applications and has either claimed 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 different dates, for the remaining, Section 2(h) and Section 7(9) has been claimed simultaneously as well as interchangeably. 9.1.5 CPIO, TC has provided responses on all the RTI Applications denying all the information as being outside Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In particular response to income and expenditure sought of various Non-Public Funds, CPIO, has claimed Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act to deny the information. 9.1.6 CPIO, CAC has responded on only 3 set of RTI Applications and no response has been provided on the remaining set of RTI Applications. 9.1.7 CPIO, SAC has responded on all the RTI Applications and has even provided appropriate information on the subject matters of Commander’s Conference and residence of officers. While for information pertaining to Farewell Parties, information has been denied under 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 that information cannot be provided. 10. Analysis of Appellants RTI Application(s): In addition to the few observations made already regarding the cumbersome nature of most of the RTI Applications, it shall also be brought on record that in a number of RTI Applications, Appellant has even sought for information in the form of clarifications, speculations, which may require the CPIO to deduce replies after elaborate research. While some of the queries are extremely mundane in nature like asking for the number 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 the AOC/CO who attended these parties? Did his wife also attend it? If yes, then what was the authority, on what purpose, her name & credentials? Was she a private citizen or Public Authority? On what authority was she allowed to attend some parties dealing with public servants? Did she or ACO/CO receive
33
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force any gifts in these parties? If yes, under what authority & value & source of these gifts?”
DECISION A comprehensive reading of the foregoing excerpts, analysis and submissions of both the parties, do not leave much to interpret for the Commission as regards the maintainability of these Appeals. Yet, there a few points that shall be noted by the Respondents: I.
When the RTI Applications are taken in its entirety, the claim of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act by the CPIOs for not being able to provide the information holds good. However, RTI Applications where singular information was sought, for instance, the income and expenditure of Non-Public Funds in most of the set of RTI Applications is a single query, similarly, disposal of Appellant’s personal applications, do not warrant invoking Section 7(9), as, if they were taken individually, these RTI Applications could have been responded to with the information as per availability.
II.
CPIO, CAC and CPIO, SAC have largely violated the provisions of RTI Act by not responding to a number of RTI Applications and no particular reasons have been provided for this lapse.
III.
CPIO, SAC has attempted to reply on most of the queries as per the availability of information and the same is in consonance with the provisions 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 as public authorities, it may be noted that in the instant matters, this question does not arise for adjudication before the Commission in as much as the RTI Applications have been filed with public authorities and not with these Non-Public Fund ventures directly. It follows then that the Respondents have erred in relying on Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and in 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:
34
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force Section 2(j)- “....“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to—...........” Section 2(f)- “....“information” means any material in any form, including records, 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 any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force...” When the said two Sections are read together it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasised therefore that even if hypothetically the Respondents claim of these non-public fund ventures not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the Appellant has sought information from a public authority and not from said ventures, therefore the contention of the Respondents that NPFs are not public authorities will not apply to the merits of this case. Accordingly, the appropriate recourse for the Respondents would be to provide such information which is available with them or which they can access from these ventures. Alternatively, where information is not available/cannot be accessed, a categorical reply should be made to that effect while replying on the RTI Application. V.
Commission sparingly acknowledges that this is an attempt on the Appellant’s part to fight corruption within the IAF, and based on the facts on record, the Respondent’s submissions also find equal consideration. On the hindsight, however noble the end of this vociferous attempt of bringing about probity in the functioning of IAF would have been, fact remains that the means adopted by the Appellant regrettably speaks volumes of his ignorance of the spirit of the RTI Act.
VI.
RTI Act is a powerful tool in the hands of the informed citizenry, and it has to be utilised while keeping in mind the balance between the applicability of different provisions therein. These provisions while allowing maximum disclosure, has also limited the access to information under Sections like 8 & 9 of the RTI Act and other Sections like 2(f), 2(h), 35
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 7(9) for such interpretation, which does not obliterate the primary purpose of the Act. VII.
As much as the CPIO has a statutory responsibility of complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, it is also expected of the RTI Applicants to not transgress the spirit of the RTI Act and resort to clogging the functioning of the public authority by filing mundane RTI Applications merely claiming that it is intrinsic to fighting corruption. Appellant is a learned advocate apart from being an ex-serviceman, such recourse to RTI Act is perhaps more of an abuse of the process of law.
VIII.
It would have been cogent for the Appellant to have filed RTI Applications systematically in a structured manner i.e with specific requests bringing them clearly within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which would have avoided the apparent relentless prejudice done to valuable resources of time, money and paper.
IX.
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court'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 and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in 36
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving 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 collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:"39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources." In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: "8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the
37
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto." A more lucid rationale can be drawn in the facts of the present matter by 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 of Ministry of Defence is to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India. If the limited manpower and resources of the Directorate General, Defence Estates as well as the Cantonment Board are devoted to address such meaningless queries, this Court is of the opinion that the entire office of the Directorate General, Defence Estates Cantonment Board would come to stand still." "This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law." X.
Appellant’s assertive submission during the first few hearings added some perspective to his Appeals however his absence from all of the subsequent hearings without any intimation, despite being given proper video conferencing facility, is not understood. Commission is fully aware of the fact that, it is not mandatory for Appellants to attend the hearing of Second Appeals, yet presence of Appellants during hearings offer a considerable role in shaping appropriate adjudication on the facts presented before it.
XI.
It is also important to highlight that at no particular stage during the pendency of these Appeals did it appear that the Respondents have adopted deliberate tactics for not parting with the information sought. It will suffice to say that looking at the amplitude of queries and number of RTI Applications, Commission itself feels constrained to not order any relief, as at this stage, limiting the information sought appears neither conducive nor providing inspection seems feasible, to circumvent the prima-facie legitimate application of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act in the instant Appeals.
With the foregoing observations, Commission dismisses the Appeals. 38
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
ADVISORY Commission is of the opinion that the kind of time and resources spent by the Appellant in filing these RTI Applications and Appeals do speak of certain kind of accountability which appears to be lacking in the IAF. The lack of sufficient number of CPIOs/APIOs in one of the three largest wings of Ministry of Defence raises a serious concern regarding the kind of importance that is accorded to the RTI Act provisions. Further, the dismal rate of disposing First Appeals by the concerned FAAs of Western Air Command and Central Air Command, as evident from the chronology at para 3 above is alarming. In this context, the following steps appear rudimentary: The number of CPIOs and APIOs should be increased in all Commands and there should be atleast 1 CPIO and 1 APIO at every unit or station level. It should be incumbent on the controlling officers to conduct appropriate workshops and sensitisation programmes for the CPIOs and FAAs regarding the various provisions of the RTI Act. As is evident from the issue at hand that the crux for filing of these RTI Applications has been the lack of transparency in the operation and execution of the activities of Non-Public Fund ventures. A considered attempt should be made to bring such information which affects the fees and subscriptions deposited by the members of IAF fraternity in public domain, so that the paraphernalia around the probable misuse of such funds is not attributed to deliberate and malafide tactics. There is no doubt that establishments where funds are raised from member contributions remain at the risk of misappropriations and unaccountability. Therefore, it is in the best of interests that there should be maximum disclosure and minimum restraint on nondisclosure of the working and management of these NPFs. A copy of this order is marked to the Chief of Air Staff and the Defence Secretary to take note of the observations made above as well for appropriate action as may be deemed fit for translating the abovesaid advisory into effective implementation.
39
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy
(H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer
Copy to: Chief of Air Staff Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, Rafi Marg New Delhi – 110106 --(For taking note of the observations and advisory stated above in the order)
Defence Secretary Ministry of Defence 101-A, South Block, New Delhi --(For taking note of the observations & advisory stated above in the order)
40
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
ANNEXURE-1(1) Date of Hearing- 25/11/2016 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
File No
RTI Date 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 23.06.2016 27.01.2014 27.01.2014 27.01.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 14.08.2014 14.08.2014 14.08.2014 30.01.2014 30.01.2014 02.07.2014 08.08.2014
CIC/CC/A/2015/004661/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004670/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004667/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004659/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004629/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004722/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004711/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004709/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004539/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004554/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004626/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004719/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004741/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004660/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004712/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004717/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004714/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004621/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004556/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004594/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001254/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/000891/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/000940/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002268/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002296/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002267/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002264/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001862/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001851/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001823/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001804/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002026/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000802/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000803/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000804/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/002141/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/002270/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002141/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001811/SD
41
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
ANNEXURE-1(2) Date of Hearing- 16/12/2016 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
File No CIC/VS/A/2015/003189/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003188/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003190/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003196/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003177/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003195/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003173/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003172/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003169/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003191/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002236/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002325/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002330/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002230/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002234/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002231/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002239/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002237/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002235/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002233/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002227/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002241/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002320/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002322/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002318/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002331/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002302/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002303/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004687/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004573/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004691/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004686/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004571/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004558/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004559/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004526/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004561/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004696/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004529/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004528/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004688/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004565/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004698/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004690/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004673/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004685/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004782/SD
RTI Date 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015
42
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.
CIC/CC/A/2015/004727/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004731/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004731/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004575/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004783/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004680/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004679/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004672/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004784/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004694/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004637/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004684/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004683/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004682/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004563/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004627/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004628/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004625/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002274/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002345/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003167/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003483/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003481/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003208/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003207/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003185/SD
23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015
ANNEXURE-1(3) Date of Hearing- 20/12/2016 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
File No
RTI Date 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2016 25.04.2015
CIC/CC/A/2016/000914/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/004670/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000262/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000261/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000293/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000290/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000294/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002485/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002423/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002487/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002389/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002490/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002492/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002394/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002703/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002392/SD
43
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
CIC/VS/A/2015/002390/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002574/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002701/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002395/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002396/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002709/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002399/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002884/SD
25.04.2015 25.04.2015 25.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015
ANNEXURE-1(4) Date of Hearing- 23/12/2016 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
File No
RTI Date 21.09.2014 22.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015
CIC/CC/A/2015/003508/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/002423/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000304/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000307/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000308/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000302/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000303/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000312/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000268/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000269/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000272/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000274/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000275/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000277/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000279/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000280/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000282/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000283/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000285/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000287/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000927/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000929/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000266/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000921/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000794/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000792/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000791/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000790/SD
44
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force
ANNEXURE-1(5) Date of Hearing- 05/01/2017 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
File No CIC/CC/A/2015/004600/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004623/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004620/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004618/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004619/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004568/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004590/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004614/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004616/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004569/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004617/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000331/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004676/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004669/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004668/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001674/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004624/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004615/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000340/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004595/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000339/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004560/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004551/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001675/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004549/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004675/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004674/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004671/SD
RTI Date 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 04.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 04.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 04.09.2014 23.06.2015 04.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 04.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015
Date of Hearing- 12/01/2017 ANNEXURE-1(6) S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
File No
RTI Date 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015
CIC/VS/A/2015/002275/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002276/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002277/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002279/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002280/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002281/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002282/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002283/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002284/SD
45
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.
CIC/VS/A/2015/002285/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002286/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002287/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002288/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002289/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002290/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002278/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002335/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002333/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002332/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002225/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002245/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002247/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002249/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002253/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002255/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002259/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002257/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002261 /SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002299/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002292/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002300/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002296/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002295/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002321/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002317/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002328/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002327/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002316/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002305/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002304/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002267/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002266/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002271/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002270/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002273/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002264/SD
25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015
ANNEXURE-1(7) Date of Hearing- 22/03/2017 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
File No CIC/VS/A/2015/002418/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002498/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002483/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002504/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002486/SD
RTI Date 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015
46
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
CIC/VS/A/2015/002491/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002685/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002488/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002482/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002506/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002397/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002398/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002208/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000916/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002500/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002209/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002406/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002687/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002409/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002691/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002206/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002714/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002269/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002207/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002272/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002416/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002711/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002414/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002710/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002708/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002412/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002693/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000556/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004630/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004638/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004704/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004706/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000411/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004664/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004663/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004662/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004742/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004740/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004631/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004738/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004736/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004734/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004533/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004552/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004665/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004747/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004748/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004746/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004750/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004692/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004579/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004689/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004749/SD
30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 13.06.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 13.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 05.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015
47
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111.
CIC/CC/A/2015/004606/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004703/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004702/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004699/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004605/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004697/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004751/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004701/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004752/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004604/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004693/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002219/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002222/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002250/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002223/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002226/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002228/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002238/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002248/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002251/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002252/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002254/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002256/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002260/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002268/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/004695/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/001393/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002548/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001127/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004781/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004603/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004599/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004786/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004601/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004602/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004597/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004788/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004707/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004784/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004782/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004710/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004705/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004708/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002629/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002631/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002635/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002626/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002627/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002633/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000880/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000713/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000715/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000714/SD
29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 29.06.2015 14.07.2014 01.09.2014 06.09.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 05.05.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 04.04.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015
48
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163.
CIC/CC/A/2016/000657/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000660/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000659/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000658/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000716/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000718/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000976/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000977/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000712/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000650/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000647/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000641/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000236/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000272/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000277/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000278/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000279/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000280/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000282/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000286/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002543/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000337/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000334/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000335/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000333/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004731/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004727/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004779/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004738/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004736/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004734/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004753/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004745/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004740/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004724/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004729/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004754/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004755/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004757/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004732/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004743/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004741/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004742/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004744/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004756/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000190/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000153/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000238/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000159/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000005/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002474/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002520/SD
23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 13.09.2014 01.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 29.06.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014
49
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214 215. 216.
CIC/CC/A/2016/000758/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000759/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000760/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000871/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000748/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000867/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000870/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000869/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000868/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000007/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000006/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000002/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000852/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000938/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000845/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000844/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000846/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000850/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000849/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000848/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000896/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000847/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000851/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000898/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000897/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000899/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000900/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/000305/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000304/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000306/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000307/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000308/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000302/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000117/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000662/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000653/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000739/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000656/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000663/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000664/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000655/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000654/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000661/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002625/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004778/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002411/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002200/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000404/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001745/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/002208/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002718/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002863/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002141/SD
29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 04.04.2015 23.06.2015 30.04.2015 07.04.2015 09.09.2014 25.07.2014 28.01.2014 07/04/2015 07/04/2015 07/04/2015
50
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244.
CIC/VS/A/2015/002229/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002725/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002719/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002232/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002770/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002842/SD CIC/SA/A/2015/001391/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004589/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004780/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001481/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000992/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000812/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000811/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000671/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000642/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000652/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000673/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000669/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000672/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000674/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000991/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000813/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000676/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000648/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000858/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000640/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000809/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000562/SD
07/04/2015 07/04/2015 07/04/2015 07/04/2015 07/04/2015 07/04/2015 07/04/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 07/09/2014 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015 18/05/2015
ANNEXURE-1 (8) Date of Hearing- 23/03/2017 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
File No CIC/CC/A/2016/000819/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000821/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000779/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000822/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000818/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000820/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002810/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000817/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001274/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001085/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001084/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001083/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000271/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000270/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000269/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/00133/SD
RTI Date 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 04.04.2015 25.05.2015 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014
51
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.
CIC/CC/A/2015/000108/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002142/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000087/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002542/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000275/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000135/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000274/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000273/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002592/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002694/SD CIC/VS/A/2014/002660/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002705/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002702/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002545/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002452/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002783/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002458/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002704/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002775/.SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002421/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002538/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002541/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002688/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002699/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002671/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002442/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002674/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002684/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002677/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002139/SD CIC/VS/A/2013/002137/SD CIC/VS/A/2015.002138/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002584/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002637/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002650/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002698/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002564/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002692/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002339/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002566/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002662/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002654/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002596/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002638/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002571/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002659/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002651/SD
17.09.2014 07.04.2015 17.09.2014 07.04.2015 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 25.05.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015
52
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116.
CIC/CC/A/2015/001767/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000455/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000446/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001770/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002480/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002644/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002534/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002657/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002577/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002690/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002678/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002665/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002695/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002645/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002668/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002670/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002648/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002641/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002569/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002532/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002686/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002697/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002581/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000804/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000801/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000802/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000803/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000800/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000798/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000797/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000799/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000354/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000355/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000357/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002679/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000358/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000361/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000359/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000362/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000363/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000360/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002216/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002221/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002262/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002215/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002217/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002242/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002218/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002212/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002211/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002240/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002244/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002243/SD
17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 30.04.2015 03.07.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.06.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015
53
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
CIC/VS/A/2015/002210/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002263/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002214/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000558/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000482/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000618/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000481/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000483/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000479/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002617/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002615/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/002029/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001345/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001344/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001343/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001342/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001315/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001313/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001312/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001311/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001367/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001379/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001401/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001400/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000985/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000984/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000982/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000981/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000980/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000806/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000016/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000015/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000014/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000989/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000988/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000987/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000986/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001681/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001680/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001678/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000714/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000701/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000700/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001672/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000748/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000747/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000746/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000745/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000744/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000743/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000742/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000741/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000281/SD
07.04.2015 07.04.2015 07.04.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 04/04/2015 04/04/2015 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 24.10.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014
54
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
CIC/CC/A/2015/000230/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000229/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000276/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000217/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000215/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000214/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000213/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000170/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000167/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000093/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000218/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000303/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000092/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000094/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000274/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000275/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/002479/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/002481/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/002480/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/002483/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/002478/SD
17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 17.09.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 21.09.2014 21.09.2014 21.09.2014 21.09.2014 21.09.2014
ANNEXURE-1(9) Date of Hearing -24/03/2017 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24.
File No CIC/CC/A/2016/000722/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000724/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000720/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000116/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000115/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000114/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000113/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000112/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000111/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000110/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000772/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000773/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000774/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000775/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000778/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000777/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000776/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000838/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000843/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000842/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000194/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000154/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001824/SD
RTI Date 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 30.04.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 20.07.2014
55
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.
CIC/CC/A/2015/000342/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000343/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000344/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000345/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000346/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000347/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000348/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000349/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000352/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000570/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000350/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000836/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000837/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000866/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000872/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001685/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000835/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000834/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000832/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000828/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000733/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001679/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000084/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000077/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000076/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004592/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004593/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000114/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004658/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004678/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002484/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002455/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002570/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002450/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002420/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002449/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002559/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002562/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002454/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002716/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002459/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002402/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002403/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000085/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000073/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000070/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000072/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000071/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000083/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000074/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000086/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000075/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000078/SD
30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.03.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 30.08.2014 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015
56
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.
CIC/RK/A/2016/000088/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000079/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000087/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000278/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000284/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000273/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000270/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000267/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000314/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000795/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000286/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000276/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000313/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000796/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000108/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000109/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000120/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004655/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004745/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000106/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004654/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004744/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004649/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004648/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004645/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004643/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000121/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004550/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000119/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000117/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000104/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000116/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000111/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000112/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/004656/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004653/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004650/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004652/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004651/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004647/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004646/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004644/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004641/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000311/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000310/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000309/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000339/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004780/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004775/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004774/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004773/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004772/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004781/SD
25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015
57
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183
CIC/CC/A/2015/004591/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004771/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004770/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004768/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004767/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004765/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004764/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004763/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004762/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004761/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004760/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004758/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004075/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004766/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004769/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004721/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004716/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004715/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004718/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004713/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004720/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004725/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004733/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004735/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004730/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004726/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004737/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004739/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004723/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001128/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004612/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004635/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004789/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004574/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004548/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004547/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004546/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004634/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004633/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004632/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004613/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004611/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004610/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004609/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004608/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004607/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004596/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004543/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000206/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004790/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004793/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004791/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004794/SD
23.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 28.07.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 08.09.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 13.08.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.01.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015
58
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236
CIC/CC/A/2015/004792/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000204/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004578/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004577/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004576/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004788/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004787/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004786/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004785/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004777/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004700/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004776/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004642/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004636/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004640/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000780/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000815/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000731/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000730/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000788/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000787/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000808/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000805/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000665/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000816/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000785/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000807/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000783/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000786/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000729/SD CIC/C/A/2016/000784/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000782/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000781/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000728/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000667/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000733/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000448/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000449/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000444/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000447/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000442/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000443/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000452/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000441/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000440/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000439/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000438/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000456/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000453/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000322/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000331/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000329/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000330/SD
29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015
59
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253. 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289
CIC/CC/A/2015/004677/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004678/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/003373/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000222/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000333/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000216/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000211/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000255/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000191/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000208/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000221/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000220/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001328/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/003357/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000919/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000920/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000922/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000923/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000924/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000925/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000926/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000936/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000901/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000903/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000904/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000907/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000908/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000909/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000910/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000911/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000912/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000913/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000917/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000915/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000645/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000029/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000028/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000027/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000026/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000025/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000021/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000020/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000018/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000017/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000031/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000024/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000022/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000644/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000019/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000349/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000350/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000351/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000029/SD
23.06.2015 23.06.2015 09.07.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 12.09.2014 01/02/2014 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015 29/06/2015
60
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308
CIC/RM/A/2014/004451/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/004502/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004728/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004657/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000865/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000874/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000854/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000827/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000814/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000736/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/003827/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/003828/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002472/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000318/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000374/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000341/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004759/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000450/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000108/SD
02/02/2014 02/02/2014 23/06/2015 25/05/2015 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 28/07/2014 23/05/2015 29/08/2014 29/08/2014 29/06/2015 23/06/2015 23/06/2015
ANNEXURE – 1(10) Date of Hearing- 28/03/2017 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
File No CIC/CC/A/2015/001682/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001684/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001755/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001683/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/002897/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/002898/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/003260/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/003258/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/003257/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/003256/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/004020/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/003729/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001691/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003179/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003176/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003180/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003182/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002343/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/003482/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001498/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001500/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001484/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001277/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001255/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/001993/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/001337/SD
RTI Date 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 01.08.2014 13.01.2014 13.01.2014 06.01.2014 06.01.2014 06.01.2014 06.01.2014 09.01.2014 20.01.2015 01.08.2014 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.10.2014 25.10.2014 25.10.2014 25.10.2014 25.10.2014 20.01.2015 04.06.2014
61
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.
CIC/CC/A/2014/001548/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000083/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000288/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000298/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000301/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000302/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002911/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002643/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002646/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002653/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002777/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002910/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002622/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002636/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002620/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/001936/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/001938/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/001937/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/001939/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001326/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001497/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000053/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000054/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000055/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000057/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000067/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000065/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000064/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000063/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000062/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000061/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000060/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000059/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000069/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000068/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000056/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000052/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002619/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000298/SD CIC/CC/A?2014/001339/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000349/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000353/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000344/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000345/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000336/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000341/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000342/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000343/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000340/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000338/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000339/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000928/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000175/SD
04.06.2014 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 18.05.2015 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 10.02.2015 10.02.2015 10.02.2015 10.02.2015 25.10.2014 25.10.2014 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 04.04.2015 18.05.2015 09.03.2014 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 25.05.2015 18.05.2015
62
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.
CIC/CC/A/2016/000177/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000262/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000263/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000299/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000183/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000185/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000187/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000232/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000297/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000273/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000295/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000296/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000236/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000188/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000235/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000234/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000233/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000182/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/002740/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002861/SD
18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 25.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 18.05.2015 25.05.2015 13.07.2014 04.04.2015
ANNEXURE-1(11) Date of Hearing-29/03/2017 S. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
File No CIC/CC/A/2016/000940/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000953/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000941/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000954/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000955/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000933/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000930/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000951/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000931/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000935/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000950/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000949/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000939/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000944/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000948/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000947/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000945/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001398/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001397/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001396/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001395/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001394/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001399/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000942/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000943/SD
RTI Date 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 04.07.2014 04.07.2014 04.07.2014 04.07.2014 04.07.2014 04.07.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015
63
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.
CIC/CC/A/2016/000952/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000904/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000895/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000887/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000888/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000958/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000959/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000960/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000894/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000905/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000957/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000956/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000890/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000863/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000886/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000889/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000893/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000892/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000891/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000999/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000857/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000856/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000855/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000854/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000853/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000734/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000726/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000691/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000686/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000683/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000682/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000681/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000680/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000689/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000679/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000677/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000651/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000107/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002138/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000291/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000244/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000290/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000292/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000293/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000297/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000299/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000300/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000875/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000873/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000754/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000756/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000757/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000874/SD
29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 10.07.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015
64
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127 128 129 130 131
CIC/CC/A/2016/000872/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000749/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000738/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000736/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000877/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000735/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000753/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000752/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000751/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000750/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000257/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000243/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000239/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000165/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002504/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000755/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000047/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000046/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000044/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000041/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000037/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000036/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000035/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000034/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000033/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000051/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000049/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000050/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002165/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000048/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001337/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001336/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001335/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001341/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001339/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001340/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000133/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000131/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000128/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000092/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000094/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000091/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000565/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000212/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001324/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001334/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001325/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001318/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001333/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001317/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000089/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000093/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000038/SD
29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 10.09.2014 01.08.2014 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06..2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 10/07/2014 23.06.2015 08.09.2014 08.09.2014 08.09.2014 08.09.2014 08.09.2014 08.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015
65
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184
CIC/RK/A/2016/000090/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000039/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001100/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004566/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/004587/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004553/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004585/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004555/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004564/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004572/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004583/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004567/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004598/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004562/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004622/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004570/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/004557/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002311/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002323/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002306/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002298/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002297/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002294/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002313/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002308/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002309/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002315/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002312/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002310/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002291/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002314/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002301/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000800/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000893/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000398/SD CIC/YA/A/2015/001250/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000300/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000358/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000743/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000740/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000746/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000885/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000884/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000883/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000882/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000881/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000879/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000878/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000744/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000742/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001673/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/000809/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000473/SD
23.06.2015 23.06.2015 06.09.2014 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 09.06.2015 13.08.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 16.09.2014 16.09.2014 28.08.2014 10.09.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 01.09.2014 01.09.2014 23.06.2015
66
WWW.LIVELAW.IN Wg. Cdr. Sanjeev Sharma Vs. CPIOs, Indian Air Force 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203
CIC/RK/A/2016/000476/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000457/SD CIC/VS/A/2015/002307/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000469/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000468/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000466/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000465/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000463/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000461/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000458/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000459/SD CIC/RK/A/2016/000295/SD CIC/RM/A/2014/002213/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000348/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000301/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000359/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000303/SD CIC/CC/A/2016/000360/SD CIC/CC/A/2015/001338/SD
23.06.2015 23.06.2015 29.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 23.06.2015 03.02.2014 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015 29.06.2015
67
