Information pertaining to details for having worked out certain amount as if due from the appellant with copy of the note and order of the concerned file - CIC: The investigation is completed and charge sheet has also been filed; Provide the information
29 Oct, 2018ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information pertaining to details for having worked out the amount Rs. 2,04,515/- as if due from him vide letter dated 03.05.2017 with copy of note and order of the file concerned and details for having worked out the amount due from him as Rs. 4,44,743/- vide memo dated 04.05.2018 with copy of the note and order of the file concerned. The CPIO on 30.05.2018 denied information 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 Act. The FAA on 27.06.2018 provided detailed explanation on the information sought. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
Decision :
2. The Sr. Superintendent, Tambaram division in her written submission dated 23.08.2018, explained as under:
“…It is submitted that a Rule 14 charge sheet was issued against Sri A. Rajasekaran (appellant) for his lapses vide this office memo no. F1/4-41/12 dated 30.04.2015. Also a complaint was lodged with CBI authorities under FIR no. RC-MA12012A 0054 dated 20.12.12 in the said Tiruvottiyur fraud case and the CBI authorities remitted the case to the CBI court under CC 14/2015 and Sri A. Rajasekaran, has been listed as one of the accused in the charge sheet filed by the CBI.
It is humbly submitted that the details for having worked out the amount, sought for by the appellant in his RTI, is office noting which contains other senior division officials details also and hence which when disclosed will impede the process of prosecution/disciplinary proceedings currently underway, as it will tend to complicate the process predicated on a given level of disclosure of material and will make the competent authority’s task even more complex as observed by the Hon’ble CIC in order no. CIC/AT/A/2007/00234 dated 11.12.2007 and hence it was informed to the appellant that the information sought for by him, could not be provided. Also it is pertinent to note that the details of 4 accounts and the amount apportioned were clearly indicated in the show cause notice dated 03.05.17 itself.
It is submitted that demand of the appellant in the RTI, is about disclosure of file notings and other materials which otherwise would not be available to the employee/appellant under disciplinary proceedings Rules. The Commission has observed the above in order no. CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.06.2006 in the case of GovindJha vs Army Hqs and concluded that “it has been the consistent position of the Commission that a disciplinary enquiry assumed the characteristics of an ongoing investigation and the material thereof cannot be disclosed 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.
Thus the version of the appellant that the provisions of Sec 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 RTI Act, 2005 cited by the CPIO to deny the information and copies of documents requested for by him have no relevance to the subject matter, is not acceptable. It is also submitted that the Commission in case nos. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007, CIC/AT/A/2007/00010 and CIC/AT/A/2007/00011 dated 10.07.2007 has held that in Para 17
“…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; 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; in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In that sense, an investigation can be an extended investigation.
Hence the appellant cannot infer that no aspect of the case is still under investigation as claimed by the CPIO. It is submitted that the Rule 14 inquiry and the judicial proceedings against the appellant is underway and hence it is kindly requested that the Hon’ble CIC may be pleased to consider the above facts of the case and it is prayed that the appeal may be disposed off as devoid as merit.”
3. The Commission upon hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusal of records finds that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has also been filed. In view of the above, the Commission rejects the contention of the respondent authority, which is not correct. Hence, the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the complete background of the case along with the information sought in the form of certified copies, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri A Rajasekaran v. Dept of Posts in CIC Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/146324, Date of Decision - 30.08.2018