Copies of file including note sheets & letters exchanged with CVC & CBI in two cases were sought - Appellant: at one point of time, it was concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to launch a prosecution & it was revised - CIC: inspection permitted
27 Oct, 2014
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 06.09.2012 seeking copies of the complete files including noting sheets and letters exchanged with CVC and CBI in certain cases.
2. The CPIO responded on 24.09.2012 and denied information to the appellant under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act. The appellant filed his first appeal on 04.10.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 22.10.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 25.01.2014 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant's representative and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant's representative referred to the RTI application of 06.09.2012 and stated that they want copies of the complete file including note sheets and letters exchanged between respondent organization with CVC and CBI in the two cases which were mentioned in the RTI application.
5. The appellant's representative stated that prosecution was sanctioned by the Railway Board and matter pertained to certain selection which had been held under the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) system and at that point of time the appellant was the Chairman of the Allahabad RRB.
6. The appellant's representative stated that while they have been given a reply from the CPIO on 24.09.2012 containing the Ministry's comments but the information has not been given to the appellant. The appellant's representative stated that the information has been denied to them by invoking section 8(1)(h), 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act.
7. The respondent stated that the matter is before the trial court, hence whatever records would be deemed appropriate, the court itself would provide to the appellant. The respondent stated that vigilance case files by which the prosecution was sanctioned are confidential because they are of sensitive nature and contained investigation reports, and that providing the information to the appellant may endanger the life or physical safety of witnesses/officials related with the case. The respondent said that the disclosure of information could handicap the prosecution.
8. The appellant's representative stated that this matter had come up earlier before the Commission in appeal No.CIC/AD/C/2013/000429/VS dated 30.07.2014. The appellant's representative stated that the information provided by the respondent organization after the Commission's decision No.CIC/AD/ C/2013/000429/VS/07554 dated 31.07.2014 was misleading and incomplete.
9. The appellant's representative stated that this is a matter where the respondent organization has concealed information from the appellant. The appellant's representative stated that whatever be the facts of the matter, there was a point of time when the respondent organization had reached the conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient to launch a prosecution and that the material for this is available in the file. The appellant's representative stated that it was as an afterthought that the respondent organization decided to launch a prosecution. Hence they want to look at the file.
10. What emerged from the hearing was that according to the appellant's representative the prosecution was not sanctioned earlier. Hence, it was important to know why the prosecution was not sanctioned, and what were the stated reasons, and what were the circumstances which prevailed upon the respondent organization to revise their earlier decision. The appellant's representative said that it is this point on which they are focusing.
Decision:
11. The respondent is directed to enable, within 30 days of this order, the appellant to inspect the file and documents pertaining to the sanction of the appellant's prosecution in the context of para 10 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri P.K. Sanghi v. Railway Board in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000616/VS/07848