Information about fraudulent sanction of TA bills of Shri Devilal, then Superintendent Post Offices, action taken report on the inquiry report and related correspondence was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - CIC: disclosure is in larger public interest
10 Nov, 2013Information about fraudulent sanction of TA bills of Shri Devilal, then Superintendent Post Offices, action taken report on the inquiry report and related correspondence was denied 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; 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; – CIC referred to Delhi High Court decision dated 03/12/2007 (WP)(C) no. 3114/2007 Bhagat Singh Vs CIC and Ors wherein it was held that the mere pendency of investigation / inquiry is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information - the disclosure of the information would ‘impede’ with the investigation for using the section - disclosure is in larger public interest
Information sought:
(A) Information relating to the TA bills of Shri Devilal, then Superintendent Post Offices Guna Dn for the period w.e.f. January 2009 to April 2010:
I. Attested copy of the file regarding the TA bills sanctioned by R O lndore/ Gwalior w.e.f. January 2009 to April 2010 (Copies of Diaries of the officer w.e.f. Jan 2009 to April 2010, copies of TA bills inc. lodge / hotel receipts of the TA bill of June and July 2009 originals of which were lying with the office copy of the TA bills & copies of notesheets of the file with effect from February 2009 to date. (the file contains important notes of R P Srivastava then ASPOs (Admn) Gwalior regarding fraudulent claim of lodging charges of hotels not in existence claimed by Sh. Devilal then Supdt Post Guna Dn in the TA bill of January 2010 .the matter was brought the notice of DPS Gwalior in September2010) [But excluding the copies of TA bills of February 2009, March 2009, April 09, May 2009, Aug 09, September 09, October 09, November 09, December 2009 since copies of these TA bills have been received from DA (P) Bhopal]
II. Related correspondence thereof from RO Gwalior
Ill. Copy of Explanation of Shri Devilal then Superintendent Guna regarding fraudulent submission of TA bill for January 2010
IV. As there has been a fraud /cheating on the part of Shri Devilal then Supdt Post Guna Dn. which was clearly found and established ,it was expected to call for old TA bills from DAP Page 1 of 3 Bhopal and investigate the matter, details of follow up action taken by Regional office Gwalior and Indore.
V. Details of disposal of TA bill of January 2010 which was claimed for Rs 11,004/-
VI. Particulars of complaints received regarding fraudulent claims of forged TA bills including bogus halts and copies of investigation reports thereof {submitted by ASPOs (Admn) Sh P. Guru and SPOs Gwalior and by RO Gwalior}
VII. Inquiry reports, if any, submitted by Sh Pitwas Guru ,ASPOs Gwalior and SPOS Gwalior and by any other officer of RO Indore
(B) Action taken report on the inquiry report (The matter was enquired by the ASPOs Admn. Gwalior in Aug 2010) on complaint of “Ghoos Nivaaran Samiti” Guna regarding irregularities committed by Shri Devllal, then Superintendent Post Offices Guna Dn.
(C) Particulars of crediting of Rs. 30,000/- with penal interest of Rs. 3000/- for adjustment of outstanding TA advance for Feb. 2010 to April 2010 by Shri Devilal SPO Guna Dn.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The information has been refused 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; 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, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. R. P. Shrivastava;
Respondent: Mr. G. L. Vardhani, CPIO’s representative on video conference from NIC-Indore Studio;
The appellant stated that he had detected fraudulent claims in the TA Bills claimed by Mr. Devilal for the period January 2009 to April 2010 and wants copy of the note-sheets and the file pertaining to the matter. The CPIO’s representative stated that an inquiry has been conducted and the matter has been referred to the higher authorities for approval of further action. He further contended that the matter relates to an investigation/inquiry which is in progress and hence the information is exempt 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; 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 vehemently argued that the respondent must clearly show as to how the disclosure of the information sought by him would impede the process of inquiry/investigation; sans this consideration the information cannot be withheld. He further stated that the matter clearly relates to corruption/misappropriation of government funds which was exposed by him as long back as September 2010 and the information is disclosable to him in larger public interest. He emphasized that the larger public interest shown by him (viz. the matter relates to corruption) and the fact that the respondents are unable to show any satisfactory reason as to how the release of the information would hamper the investigation/inquiry clearly establishes that the information (viz. the copies of the notesheets in the file) should be disclosed to him.
Decision notice:
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 03/12/2007 (WP)(C) no. 3114/2007 Bhagat Singh Vs CIC and Ors has held as under:
“13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, 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; 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; and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information. The mere pendency of investigation/inquiry is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information would ‘impede’ or even on a lesser threshold ‘hamper’ or ‘interfere’ with the inquiry/investigation. This burden the respondent has failed to discharge besides the appellant has vehemently argued that the matter relates to corruption a contention which the respondent has not been able to dispute.
In view of the foregoing we are of the opinion that the information is disclosable in larger public interest. The CPIO is accordingly directed to disclose the relevant file notings to the appellant within 03 weeks from the date of receipt of this order after redacting the names of the officers who wrote the notes or made the entries in the concerned file. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. R. P. Srivastava v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001548/3625