Copies of file notings relating to departmental action was sought - CIC: As final orders are yet to be passed under the SEBI Act, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI; the requested information is exempt u/s 8(1)(h)
24 Mar, 2015Information sought:-
The appellant has sought following information w.r.t. release of retirement benefits, financial upgradation due from Oct 2004 and recommendation of CBI to conduct RDA i.e. 2nd Regular departmental proceedings bearing No. VIG/2007/A/1:-
(a) Reasons for non-granting of issues concerned to me. Provide the documentary evidences regarding the same.
(b) What are the reasons for non-granting of Sr. SDE Scale w.e.f. Oct 2004 in spite of the letter no. CTD/RTI/2012-13/SEPT-08/8 of CGM/CTD on 11/12/2012. Who is not giving clearance of the same? The cause of the same may be specified with documentary evidences.
(c) Reasons for non-granting of retirement benefits with recorded reasons thereof and order of the competent authority if any? The same may be specified with documentary evidences.
(d) Correspondence with the CBI officers and the appropriate authority of the department, mainly vigilance cell of CTD and recommendation of the CBI to proceed the 2nd regular departmental proceedings bearing no. VIG/2007/A/1 as per Affidavit given by the department in WPCT 408 of 2012 in the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The same may be specified with documentary evidence.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Manik Lal Kar through VC
Respondent: Mr. Somen Bannerjee APIO through VC
The appellant stated that the issue in this appeal is the same as that covered in the interim order of the Commission dated 20/11/2014 [file no. CIC/BS/A/2013/002997-Interim] listed for hearing on 24/12/2014 and they may be disposed of by a common order. He requested for a copy of the letter written by the CBI addressed to the vigilance section regarding initiation of departmental proceedings against him and for the file notings relating to the departmental proceedings against him. He informed that he has challenged the departmental proceedings against him before the CAT and needs the information to support his case. The APIO stated that they have consulted the CBI in the matter who have informed that the communication sent by them is confidential and should not be disclosed. As regards file notings he stated that disciplinary action is in progress and any premature disclosure would impede the proceedings. He claimed exemption under 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; 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 RTI Act.
Decision notice:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 04/05/2010 (W.P. (C) 6226/2007 S M Lamba vs. SC Gupta and Anr) has held as under:-
“3. The information at (ii) was declined because the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) had itself treated the said document as confidential.
Section 11 of the Right to Information Act 2005 (‘RTI Act’) was invoked by the Respondent Bank to decline the request……….
6. As far as the Respondent Bank is concerned, this Court finds that no error has been committed by it by taking recourse to Section 11 of the RTI Act.”
In line with the above observation the denial of disclosure of the letter written by the CBI to vigilance section is justified.
As regards disclosure of copies of file notings relating to the departmental action, it is seen that a full bench of this Commission in its order dated 28/11/2014 (File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020 - A K Agrawal V/S RIL) has observed as under:-
“14. This Commission in its decision dated 10/07/2007 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; 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 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; 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.
15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act.” In the light of the above observations and the fact that departmental action against the appellant has not been concluded the APIO’s submission cannot be faulted. It being so, there is no need to interfere with the respondent’s decision. The appellant has pleaded that the information is required by him for supporting his case before the CAT. If that be so, the appropriate remedy available to him would be to apply to the concerned forum for summoning the records of the respondent but seeking such information under the provisions of Right to Information Act is certainly not an appropriate relief. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Manik Lal Kar v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000163/6631