Inspection of a file in relation to departmental enquiry proceedings against his client was sought - CIC: All the documents which are necessary for canvassing his client’s case has already been provided to his client; denial by PIO upheld
17 Nov, 2014Information sought:
Appellant sought inspection of file no. AAI/VIG/NER/rectt./PV-21 in relation to departmental enquiry proceedings against his client Shri S. C. Sharma ED (PMQA).
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application on 23.09.2013 seeking inspection of above mentioned file. PIO denied the inspection by invoking exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 31/10/2013 upheld the decision of PIO. The appellant stated the he appeared as a Defence Counsel in the case of departmental enquiry proceedings against Shri S.C. Sharma, ED (PMQA), retired. The respondent stated that the concerned file contained complaint, enquiry reports, advices by the CVO and CVC. On query by the Commission, whether the substance of the enquiry was given along with charge sheet, respondent stated that they have given. The appellant stated that he asked for perusal of the documents since the document is not referred in the charge sheet.
Interim Decision: 31/07/2014
The Commission directs the respondent to put up the file before the Commission and show the documents which have been denied to the appellant, invoking 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; of the RTI Act, within one week of receipt of this order, for final decision.
Decision: 06/08/2014
Respondent present and produced the file for the perusal of the Commission on 05/08/2014. Respondent stated that appellant did not mention the specific information or document w.r.t. charge sheet but merely asked for the inspection of the file no. AAI/VIG/NER/Rectt./PV-21. Respondent further stated that VIR/Vigilance file contains third party information like CVC advice, complainant’s name and addresses, MOC reference, CBI reference and other officer’s statement. On query by the Commission whether all documents, statements used for framing the charge sheet & used during the proceedings have been provided to appellant or not, respondent replied in affirmative, stating that charge sheet, documents relied on and pages from 64 to end of the file had already been provided to the charged officials. The commission observes that as per the file noting copy of the IO’s report along with CVO’s second advice is already provided to the charged officials. After hearing the respondent and perusal of record, the Commission is of the view that all the documents which are necessary to the appellant for canvassing his client’s case and the portion which relates to the appellant’s client had already been provided to his client. The commission upholds the view of PIO to deny the inspection of the file by invoking exemption under 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; of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Gp. Capt D.C. Mehta v. Airport Authority of India in F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000043-YA