CIC: The term ‘investigation’ used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally; No investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken
22 Jan, 2017O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant, vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points regarding a ‘Decoy Check’ conducted at EQ Cell/ Sr. DCM Office, DRM Complex, WRS Colony, Raipur, SECR and inter alia desired to know whether any reference was made to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi for seeking 1st stage and 2nd stage advice against the incident that took place at EQ Cell, Raipur/ SEC Railway on 17.11.2011 and matters related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19/20.04.2015, stated that as per the records available with vigilance office, Bilaspur, DAR enquiry regarding the ‘Decoy Check’ was under process. It was further stated that the information sought could not be provided since the file dealing with the disciplinary case against government servant was exempted under para 837 of ‘Indian Railway Vigilance Manual’. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 19/20.05.2015, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present: Appellant: Mr. A. Gangopadhyay (Retired Chief OS) (M. 9826153327) through VC; Respondent: Mr. S. Dey, Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer (M: 9752475030) and Mr. N. Mohanty, Chief OS (Vigilance) (M: 9752475057) through VC;
The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no satisfactory response was provided to him. It was further submitted that exemption from disclosure was claimed citing para 837 of the Indian Railways Vigilance Manual, which was not provided in the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. In support of his contention, the appellant cited the decision of the Commission CIC/SG/A/2009/000783/3513 dated 01.06.2009, wherein disclosure was allowed on the ground that no justification of how disclosure would impede the process of investigation was provided. In reply, the respondent explained that issues raised in the RTI application related to DAR enquiry regarding a “Decoy Check” conducted at EQ Cell, Raipur, SECR which was pending investigation. It was submitted that all information desired by the appellant could be considered for disclosure subsequent to the completion of inquiry proceedings. On a query from the Commission as to how the disclosure of information would be in the public interest, the appellant explained that the SDGM, SECR who was the first appellate authority in this matter was also the Chief Vigilance Officer and the entire issue was manipulated by the vigilance department to protect the interest of Sr. DCM, Raipur. It was further alleged that officials of lower grade/ rank were wrongly punished in the matter.
The Commission observes that a full bench of this Commission in its order dated 28/11/2014 in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020 – A K Agrawal V/S SEBI and RIL, had held as under: -
“14. This Commission in its decision dated 10.7.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others Vs. DGIT) observed that the term ‘investigation’ used in section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. This Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 – K.S.Prasad vs SEBI, observed that “…as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Page 3 of 3 Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority.” This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP – Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., has held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under process, and hence it attracted section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the Act.”
Furthermore, the appellant could not establish the larger public interest in disclosure of information which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this matter at this stage.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. A. Gangopadhyay v. South East Central Railway in Appeal No.:-CIC/VS/A/2015/001556-BJ