Appellant’s complaint led to an investigation against a railway employee - copies of the statement of the accused recorded by the vigilance department were denied u/s 8(1)(g) - CIC: no reason to deny the copies of the statement to the appellant

ORDER

RTI application:

1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 06.0.2012 seeking information pertaining to investigation report on a certain complaint lodged.

2. The CPIO responded on 14.03.2012 and denied information to the appellant under 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; 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; of the RTI Act. The appellant filed his first appeal on 20.04.2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 12.06.2012. The appellant filed a second appeal on 10.09.2012 with the Commission.

Hearing:

3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through videoconferencing.

4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 06.02.2012 and stated that he was seeking information about the statements that had been recorded from a railway employee named in the RTI application.

5. The appellant stated that these statements have been recorded by the vigilance department of the railway on the basis of a complaint that the appellant had filed. The appellant stated that the employee against whom he had made a complaint had come to Katni unauthorizedly and engaged in misdemeanor and illegal practices. The appellant stated that this happened in the year 2008. The appellant said that the employee's misdemeanor and illegal activities had affected the appellant which led him to file a complaint with the railway department against the employee in question.

6. The appellant stated that the respondent organization has taken the cover of some technical clauses of the RTI Act to deny him the information. The appellant said that if he does not get the information he will be able to defend himself properly in the court of law. The appellant stated that this employee is now harassing him and driving him to the court and it was to defend himself he wants to keep all the statements which are at this point of time with the respondent organization.

7.The respondent stated that the context which the appellant has given had led to departmental enquiry and the recording of statements. The respondent explained that when the appellant's RTI application had come, it was considered by the respondent organization and a letter was sent to the various employees whose statements had been recorded to get their no objection. It was explained by the respondent that from the employees whose statement had been recorded did not have any objection to their statement be given to the appellant. However, the respondent organization felt that taking into account 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; 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; of the RTI Act, the information should not be given. The respondent also cited CIC's orderNo.CIC/AD/C/2009/001502 dated 20.01.2010 to deny the information.

8. The appellant stated that he needs the information, i.e., the statement recorded by the respondent organization. The appellant said that it was his complaint, i.e., the complaint filed by the appellant that had led to the enquiry in which the employee had also been found liable for the misconduct. The appellant said that taking into account that it was his complaint that led to the enquiry and the recording of the statements, hence there should be no reason to deny him the statements of the employees whose statements had been recorded.

9. The respondent must provide the information sought. There is no apparent reason to deny the copies of the statements sought in the RTI application.

Decision:

10. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, copies of the statements that have been sought in the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Vinod Kumar Dwivedi v. Central Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003228/VS/06208