Appellant: Inform the position of CBI’s case on complaint forwarded by CVO, Railway regarding irregularities in Physical Efficiency Test - PIO: Preliminary Enquiry was conducted; CBI recommended Disciplinary Action against officials - CIC: Exempt u/s 8(1)

Information sought:

The Appellant sought to know registration details of the case based on his complaint against Railway Authorities of Vijay wada Railway Division for their irregularities in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) selection in LARGESS-2010; name and designation of officials to whom Chargesheet has been issued, if Chargehseet has not been filed, then reasons for the same.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on phone.

Respondent: T. Vimaladitya, SP & CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Vishakhapatnam, present on phone.

Appellant stated that he wants to know the present position of CBI’s case on his complaint forwarded by CVO, S C Railway, Secundrabad regarding irregularities in Physical Efficiency Test in LARGESS 2010. He further stated that he also wanted to know the names of officials against whom CBI has proposed action.

CPIO submitted that no case was registered on the relevant complaint of the CVO but only a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted in the matter. He further submitted that CBI has recommended Disciplinary Action against erring officials.

Decision

In view of CPIO’s submission during hearing, no scope of action is pertinent in the matter as no case was registered or charge sheet filed by CBI in the matter.

Further, as regards Appellant’s prayer during hearing seeking names of the erring officials is concerned, it is observed that the same is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act. The said observation is in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam (Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009) wherein the Apex Court has exemplified the scope of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees as propounded earlier by a division bench of the same Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012].

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shaik Abdul Ganni v. Central Bureau of Investigation in File No: CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/151108, Date of Decision: 13/05/2020