Copy of letter written by vigilance department to ACB and the name of the person who forwarded appellant’s name - PIO: Appellant’s name was inadvertently added to the list; copy of letter exempt u/s 8(1)(h) - CIC: provide the name
19 Feb, 2014Copy of the letter written by the vigilance department to ACB and the name of the person who forwarded his name to ACB - PIO: Appellant’s name was inadvertently added to the list, copy of letter contains the complete facts of the case which are to be probed hence barred from disclosure u/s 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; - Appellant stated that he wanted to file case of defamation against those who have included his name without any basis - CIC: provide the information regarding who forwarded his name to ACB
ORDER
FACTS
1. The matter, in short is that Appellant vide his RTI application dt.13.12.11 sought information against six points. In his second appeal to the Commission, he has sought information against points 5 and 6, viz., the copy of the letter written by the vigilance department to anticorruption branch and the name of the person who has given his name.
2. During the hearing, Appellant insisted on sharing the information as to who forwarded his name wrongfully to ACB which created shock and dismay and put him to serious embarrassment. The Respondent officer submitted that Appellant’s name was inadvertently added to the list of persons against whom complaint has been forwarded to ACB for further enquiry. When ACB has done further enquiry by giving an opportunity to Appellant it was revealed that his name should not have been added. The Respondent submitted that Depot Manager, Rohini III has sent the letter which contained the names of the Appellant and it was forwarded as it was and they had no role in either suspecting or discharging the Appellant. The Respondent Officer is willing to disclose that it was Depot Manager, Rohini III who has sent the name of the Appellant to their office which formed basis of their letter to ACB and that information will be given once again. The Respondent submitted that since investigation by ACB is going on into the charges against many other persons after deleting the name of the Appellant and that letter also contains the complete facts of the case which are to be probed. As the investigation is still continuing, the Respondent pleaded that it will be detrimental to the process of investigation and disclosure of information about others is exempted 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; of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that he wanted to file case of defamation against those who have included his name without any basis. The information furnished to him will be sufficient enough to secure his reputation and file cases for defamation. The Respondent Officer expressed his willingness to share the information which he submitted to the Commission with the Appellant.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Chand Ram Chillar v. D.T.C., GNCTD in File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003285SA