Copy of note sheets & correspondence pages of a vigilance file were denied u/s 8(1)(h) - Appellant: not apparent how disclosure would impede investigation - Third Party agreed to disclosure - Full bench of CIC: disclose after applying severability

Copy of the note sheets & correspondence pages of a vigilance file were 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; 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; 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; - PIO: the noting is based on investigation reports received from the CBI, an organisation now exempt u/s 24 - PIO: investigation has been initiated under Prevention of Corruption Act, which is a specific enactment as opposed to the RTI Act which is a general Act - Appellant: not apparent as to how disclosure of information would impede investigation - Third Party stated that he has no objection if the information sought by the Appellant is provided – Full bench of CIC: disclose information after applying severability

Information sought:

Copy of all the note sheets and correspondence pages of the file no. 16-5/2011-Vig. maintained in the Postal Department.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The PIO has refused to give 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; 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 RTI Act, 2005.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 14/08/2013:

The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Sonam Sharma Respondent: Mr. Devendra S UIKEY, CPIO, (M- 9810811127)

The CPIO stated that the information sought by the appellant relates to an officer Shri M S Bali against whom disciplinary proceedings are in progress and hence exemption has been claimed 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; 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. The appellant argued that the information has been summarily denied quoting 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; 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 but without specifying the reasons as to how the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation/enquiry. In support of his contention the appellant cited Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 3/6/2011 (W.P. (C) 295/2011 B S Mathur vs. PIO, Delhi High Court). The CPIO requested that an opportunity should be given to him to make detailed submissions outlining the reasons as to why the information cannot be disclosed.

Interim Decision dated 14/08/2013 : After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from both the parties demonstrating in detail their respective stands on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, both parties should furnish their submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to each other) by 12/09/2013. The hearing is adjourned for 18/09/2013 at 04:00 pm.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18/09/2013: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Sonam Sharma M: 9811046711

Respondent: Absent

The appellant submitted that from a plain reading 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; 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 it is apparent that the exemption comes into play only when the information sought would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. In the matter at hand he is seeking only the copies of the note sheets & correspondence pages in file no. 16-5/2001-Vig relating to the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Manjit Singh Bali who has given his ‘no objection’ vide certificate dated 09/09/2013. He further argued that the onus is on the respondent to show cause as to how the investigation would be impeded and by merely mentioning the names of witnesses, which incidentally has not been sought by him, they cannot plead impediment. He emphasized that he is not seeking any information relating to the CBI report and/or the ongoing criminal prosecution as contended in the respondent’s submissions dated 11/09/2013. The CPIO is not present for making his submissions inspite of being put to notice for this hearing.

Interim-I Decision Notice dated 18/09/2013: As the CPIO is not available it is decided to give him one more opportunity for attending the hearing and to give his further written submissions, if any, on the appellant’s representation dated 12/09/2013 (copy enclosed) and/or any other aspect of the matter at hand. Accordingly, both parties should furnish their further submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to each other) latest by 11/10/2013. The hearing is adjourned for 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /10/2013 at 03.00 PM with a direction that the FAA/DPS should ensure that the CPIO attends the next hearing without fail.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /10/2013: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Sonam Sharma M: 9811046711

Respondent: Mr. Devendra S Uikey, CPIO M: 9810811127)

The appellant has put forth his further detailed submissions dated 11/10/2013, a copy of which has been served on the Respondent. The CPIO while admitting that he has received the said submissions stated that he has nothing to add and reiterated that the submissions made vide letter dated 11/9/2013 should be kept in mind while deciding the matter at hand. The CPIO further stated that written submission dated 10/10/2013 have been filed by him with reference to the earlier hearing held in this case on 18/09/2013 and the same comprehensively deals with all the points discussed so far. Perusal of the submissions dated 10/10/2013 relied upon by the Respondent indicates reiteration of most of the contentions put forth by him in his earlier submissions dated 11/09/2013. The CPIO & Asstt. Director General (Vigilance) in his written submissions dated 11/09/2013 and 10/10/2013 has stated that the information sought by the Applicant related to one Sh. Manjeet Singh Bali, the then Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra Circle who was trapped red handed by the CBI while accepting gratification of Rs. 2 crore on 24/02/2010. Prosecution sanction was issued on 13.12.2010 on the basis of CBI RC and on the recommendation of Central Vigilance Commission and the CBI, regular departmental action was initiated against the accused. Apart from the disciplinary case, two criminal cases are also pending against Mr. Bali in the CBI court. However, since the accused Mr. Bali is a Gr. A Officer of the Indian Postal Service and is influential in the organisation, the Department apprehended that pending finalization/reaching of logical conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, disclosure of any information with respect to these cases could jeopardize and affect the proceedings under the Disciplinary Proceeding Rules and could lead to unforeseen consequences and actions. The department apprehends that the witnesses in the disciplinary cases as well as criminal case pending in the CBI court being common witnesses and junior officers from the postal service, who could be put under pressure or intimidated if names etc. of the witnesses are disclosed. The respondents were apprehensive that divulging the information related to the witnesses to the applicant or putting it in the public domain could put the employees under pressure of seniority of the accused. The CPIO further submitted that since the noting is based on investigation reports received from the CBI, an organisation now exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act, hence on this ground also the information cannot be divulged. The CPIO has added that it is an admitted fact that action against Mr. Bali has been initiated under Prevention of Corruption Act, which is a specific enactment as opposed to the RTI Act which is a general Act. Hence, the CPIO contended that information germane to an ongoing disciplinary proceeding, if provided under RTI Act would surely impede the extant processes under other statutes. The CPIO alleged that while the RTI Act in its preamble itself endorses to combat corruption, indiscipline and such other offence, the same Act is now being used as an instrument to interrupt and derail the statutory process and garner evidence or contrive methodologies to defeat the process devised to bring them to book. The CPIO has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 499/2012 dated 09/11/2012 in Col. V K Shad vs UOI & Others wherein it has been held that the right of citizenry is required to be balanced with preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Thus, the CPIO has concluded that information in the ongoing disciplinary proceeding as available, other than what is allowed to the accused cannot be supplied.

Interim Decision notice issued on 23/10/2013:

Since the written submissions of the respondent dated 10/10/2013 have been received now and the appellant has been advanced a copy post the hearing, in the interest of justice, the Commission finds it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the appellant to rebut/address the contentions raised by the CPIO. The matter is accordingly adjourned to 10/12/2013 at 3:00pm for the appellant to address the contentions of the CPIO and vice versa. It is made clear that both parties shall be at liberty to put forth their respective arguments on the said date of hearing before the Commission passes its order.

1. The records of the case reveal that the CPIO had placed reliance on a CIC decision in the matter of Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence dealing with the term “investigation” as used in 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; 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. The CPIO inter alia has also stated that the Applicant is seeking the information in the capacity of a Third party to the case and hence should be treated in terms of the decision dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in LPA No. 618/2012 titled UPSC vs. R K Jain, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had withheld disclosure of such information apprehending unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual 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. of the RTI Act more so, in the absence of any bona fide public interest being established. Thus, despite the Applicant having furnished the ‘No Objection’ certificate from the Third Party viz. Mr. M S Bali, before the Commission, it was deemed necessary to grant fair hearing to the Third party before deciding the case at hand. Accordingly, the Commission issued the notice to attend hearing to the third party.

2. The Commission had received written submissions dated 12.09.2013 from the Applicant wherein while reiterating the entire case the Applicant rebutted the argument of the First Appellate Authority that where a departmental disciplinary proceedings are pending against an employee, his access to the material connected with disciplinary proceeding are defined by CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The Applicant quoted the Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act stating that the information sought under the RTI Act cannot be denied or curtailed by invoking provisions of any other law, not even the Official Secrets Act, much less the CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, the Appellant quoted the Section 6(2) of the RTI Act contending that the said Section ensures preclusion of any inquiry as to the reason behind the Applicant’s search of any information as also guessing any reason from personal details of the Applicant. The Applicant also resorted to provisions of the Section 4(1)(d) Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. of the RTI Act, 2005 to emphasise the obligation cast upon every public authority to provide information related to administrative and quasi judicial decisions even to the employees. Denial of such information relating to a disciplinary case against the employee is completely untenable, as per the averments of the Applicant. In addition to the above, the Applicant reiterated his arguments with respect to the 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; 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 stating that the provisions of the said Section pertains to investigation, apprehension or prosecution in criminal offences and not civil departmental disciplinary proceedings, like in the instant case. Moreover, the Applicant stated that mere pendency of an investigation/prosecution by itself is not a sufficient justification for withholding information unless the manner in which the disclosure would “impede” the investigation could be shown. To substantiate the said contention, the Applicant placed reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in the case Bhagat Singh vs. CIC (dated 17.10.2007) and also on B S Mathur vs. PIO, Delhi High Court (dated 03.06.2011). The Applicant has also expressed that the First Appellate Authority denying disclosure of information on fresh grounds is legally neither proper nor tenable and is not maintainable.

3. The Appellant’s rebuttal dated 11.10.2013 to the Respondent’s letter dated 11.09.2013 mentions that the charge sheet filed by the CBI against Mr. Bali alleges illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs and not Rs. 2 crores, as falsely submitted by the CPIO. Furthermore, the Applicant has clarified that names of witnesses and copies of their statements in both the disciplinary as well as criminal cases have already been supplied to the accused alongwith the chargesheet, as per law. Thus supply of information pertaining to the witnesses or their statements can no longer be termed as “likely to impede” the ongoing proceedings. Contentions regarding non applicability of Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act to the instant case as discussed in the preceding paragraph have been reiterated by the Applicant. The Applicant has agitated once again the failure on the part of the CPIO in establishing as to how disclosure of information in the instant case could possibly impede any investigation. Apart from the above arguments, the Applicant has pointed out that the Section 24(4) of the RTI Act referred to by the CPIO is applicable only in cases of intelligence and security organisations established by the State Governments, not applicable to CBI, which is established by the Central Government. The Applicant has further elucidated that even provisions of the other similar sub Section viz. Section 24(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: also does not debar disclosure of information relating to corruption cases, even if such information is supplied by the CBI. The Applicant has once again emphasised the overriding effect of the RTI Act in terms of the provisions of the Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the Act while mentioning yet again that the Applicant herein has no role in the abovementioned disciplinary proceedings or the criminal case against the said accused, who has already given an undertaking stating his “No objection” to disclosure of information as sought by the Applicant. While concluding his submissions, the Applicant has once again reiterated that the CPIO has failed to address or unequivocally show that disclosure of information to the Applicant would “impede” any investigation.

In view of its intricate nature the matter is referred to a larger Bench and accordingly, the hearing is now fixed before a Full Bench comprising of Mr. Basant Seth, Information Commissioner ; Mr. M. S. Acharyulu, Information Commissioner and Mr. M A Khan Yusufi, Information Commissioner.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 08/01/2014:

The following were present Appellant :

Mr. Sonam Sharma M: 9811046711

Respondent : Mr. Devendra S Uikey, CPIO M: 9810811127

Third Party : Mr. Manjit Singh Bali M: 9910013142

The appellant stated that over and above the written submissions filed by him so far, he only seeks to emphasise that the exemption claimed by the CPIO under the Section 24 of the RTI Act, is not applicable in the instant case. He placed on record three judgments to substantiate his contention viz.:

(i)                 Director General of Security & Anr. vs. Harender;

(ii)               SP, Office of Director of Vigilance & Anti Corruption vs. R Karthikeyan & Ors. and

(iii)             Esab India Ltd. vs. Special Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

 In addition to the aforesaid averments, the Appellant reiterated his contention that the applicability 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; 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 though mentioned time and again by the CPIO, has not been established in this case. The Third Party (viz. Mr. Manjit Singh Bali) present in person during the hearing stated that he has no objection if the information sought by the Appellant is provided to him. Upon being enquired by the Bench, the CPIO responded that the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings initiated and pending against Mr. M S Bali are both maintained in a joint file and the Chargesheet has been issued in both the matters after concluding the investigation. He further stated that he has no objection at this stage in furnishing the information as sought by the Appellant.

DECISION In view of the statement given by the CPIO that he has no objection in furnishing the information sought by the appellant no further deliberation is required in the matter, Accordingly, it is directed that the information as sought by the Appellant may be provided to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order after removing from the file notings and the correspondence -

(a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be

(b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and

(c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of the author of the noting/letter, as the case may be. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Sonam Sharma v. Department of Posts in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000928-Interim-I