Status of a Vigilance Case involving seven Class I officers who had been given promotion - information was denied u/s 8(1)(e), (h) & (g) – CIC: provide a copy of the rules pertaining to requirement of vigilance clearance for class I officers at promotion
27 Oct, 2013Facts:
1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 05 September 2012 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai seeking information related to status of the Vigilance Case No. 9234 involving seven Class I officers who had been given promotion, through multiple points.
2. Vide CPIO, Mumbai Order dated 01 October 2012, CPIO provided the requisite information sought in point nos.1,2,4 and denied the information sought in point no.
3 on the ground of exemption given under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; the RTI Act,2005. 3. Not satisfied by the PIO’s reply, the Appellant preferred First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority dated 16 October 2012.
4. Vide FAA Order dated 17 November 2012, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and further clarified in point no.3 that since the investigation in the case is going on, information is also 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; & section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; as disclosure of information would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
5. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the Public Authority, the Appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission.
6. Matter was heard today. Respondent as above appeared at Mumbai and were heard by videoconferencing. Appellant was present in person.
Decision notice
7. After hearing both the parties Commission directs respondent in respect of point 1 of the RTI application to provide a copy of the rules pertaining to requirement of vigilance clearance for class I officers at the time of promotion.
8. Information as above to be provided within two weeks of receipt of the order.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Mritunjai Jha v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/002696