Appellant sought for the entire file wherein prosecution sanction as well as sanction for initiating major penalty proceedings was processed - CIC: Since the inquiry report had not been submitted as on the date of the reply, denial u/s 8(1)(h) upheld
7 Jun, 2022Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 20.01.2020 seeking the following information:
1. It is requested that the following information may kindly be provided to me under RTI Act:
a) Certified copy of the entire file (including note sheets, copies of entire communication with CBI and CVC) vide which sanction for prosecution was given against me by the Disciplinary Authority in Central Bureau of Investigation case No RC AC 12013A 0001. The sanction for prosecution was given vide order dated 27.06,2016 and issued from file no C-14011/9/2016- V&L and conveyed to the CBI.
b) Certified copy of the entire file on the basis of which sanction was given by the Competent Authority for initiating major penalty proceedings against me and a Memorandum dated 27.06.2016 vide File No 14017/9/2016-Vand L was issued to me.
2. In this regard your kind attention is invited to the decision of Hon’ble CIC in the case of Manjit Singh Bali vs Department of Posts wherein the respondent were directed to supply the documents pertaining to prosecution sanction to the applicant. The decision was confirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 06.08.2018 in WP (C) 6341/2015 and CM Nos 11546/2015 and 35797/2016. Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also directed the CBDT to provide the information pertaining to sanction to the applicant in WP (C) 7048/2011 in the case of Sudhirranjan Senapati, Addl. CIT Vs Union of India. Thus, the information sought for by me is squarely covered by the decisions as mentioned above.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2020. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Pandey, DDIT (Vig) (HQ) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the reply to the RTI Application was provided on 17.02.2020 wherein the information was denied to the Appellant 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; 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; 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 and copy of the same reply was again sent to the Appellant in compliance with the FAA’s order on 21.07.2020.
The Appellant initially submitted at length facts related to some RTI Application filed with Punjab National Bank, upon a query from the Commission, the
Appellant realised that he was referring to some other case. As regards the instant case, he stated that his contentions are contained in the Second Appeal to argue against the denial of the information.
The CPIO submitted that the departmental proceedings are ongoing and the inquiry report has been received only in Dec, 2021 and is under examination of the competent authority therefore the disclosure of the related file noting(s) may impede the prosecution of the offender.
The Appellant argued that since the inquiry report has been submitted, the CPIO cannot claim the exemption of 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; 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; 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.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the contentions of the Appellant in the Second Appeal as well as the reliance placed by him on a judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Union of India vs Manjit Singh Bali dated 06.08.2018 wherein the Court observed inter alia as under:
“24…….After the investigations are complete, the information as sought by the respondent can be denied 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; 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; 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 only if the public authority apprehends that such disclosure would interfere with the course of prosecution or in apprehending the offenders. It will not be open for the public authority to deny information on the ground that such information may assist the offender in pursuing his defence (and therefore impede his prosecution). This is clearly not the import of 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; 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; 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….”
Now in the instant case, since the inquiry report had not been submitted as on the date of the reply provided to the RTI Application and considering the fact that the Appellant has sought for the entire file wherein prosecution sanction as well as sanction for initiating major penalty proceedings was processed, the denial of the information 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; 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; 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 is deemed as appropriate.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Yogendra Mittal v. O/o Director General of Income Tax (Vig.) in File No : CIC/DGITV/A/2020/692015, Date of Decision : 07/03/2022