Note sheet of action taken report on the alleged mistake committed by the inquiry officer during inquiry against the appellant was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - PIO: matter not decided - CIC: provide the note sheet authenticating that it was received from DGLL
The appellant sought information on 7 points relating to her two letters, seeking suitable action taken by the respondent authority with respect to the inquiry conducted against her.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing: All the parties are present and heard.
The appellant had filed an RTI application dated 14.07.2012, seeking the above information. CPIO vide letter dated 23.08.2012, provided a point wise reply to the appellant. The FAA disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 08.10.2012, observing that the information as available on record has been provided. Being not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission. The appellant stated that she had clearly mentioned in those two letters, as to how the inquiry was vitiated. She wanted the action taken report on the alleged mistake committed by the inquiry officer. She wanted specifically the copy of the note sheets in this regard. The respondent stated that the entire papers related to the inquiry have already been given to the appellant. The respondent agreed that there was a clerical mistake in replacing the word ‘IO’ by ‘CO’ which was later rectified and this was also intimated to the appellant. The respondent from Ministry stated that they had given the information that the inquiry has not been vitiated on the grounds mentioned by the appellant, in fact, they have not impacted the outcome of the inquiry. The appellant again mentioned that when she had sought copy of the note sheet from Director, DGLL, the information was denied to her 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; of the RTI Act. However, the respondent from Ministry clearly stated that they had provided the relevant note sheet. The appellant however, still insisted that the note sheet from DGLL was not received by here. The respondent from DGLL stated that when the appellant had sought information from them, the matter had gone to the Ministry and the Ministry had not decided on the report and that is why the information 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; , however, the same has been provided by the Ministry after fortnight.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission finds that the necessary information sought by the appellant in the form of action taken report on her two letters has been adequately attended to by the respondents from the Ministry of Shipping & DGLL. The only remaining contentious issue of the note sheet which was submitted by DGLL to the Ministry should be provided to her by the CPIO, Ministry of Shipping, authenticating that this was the only note sheet received from DGLL on which the above mentioned case was decided, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. It may be mentioned here that the same matter was adjudicated on as a complaint by the Commission vide order no. CIC/SS/C/2013/000077 dated 30.09.2013, wherein the Commission had disposed of the compliant with observation that information as available on record had already been provided to the complainant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mrs. Geeta Ghai v. M/o Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Directorate General of Lighthouses & Lightships in F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/000501
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2015/CIC/1481
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission