Information regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant was denied stating that it is confidential - CIC: Employee has the right to get a copy of complaint, noting, charge-sheet, & all relied upon documents; Provide the information

ORDER

Information sought:

The appellant sought information on 8 points with respect to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

Both parties are present.

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2014 seeking the above information. PIO vide letter dated 27.02.2014 informed the appellant that information sought is confidential, hence could not be provided at that time. Having not received any response from the FAA, Appellant filed present appeal before the Commission.

The appellant, an employee of the respondent, stated that a disciplinary action has been initiated against him and charge sheet issued to him. But, he has not been provided the necessary documents on the basis of which he should be able to prove his innocence. He, therefore, pleaded that the information asked for should be furnished to him. The respondent submits that charge sheet was issued to the appellant and now the case is pending before the competent authority for a decision in the matter after the completion of final inquiry. On a query by the Commission as to whether the preliminary inquiry report and other documents relied upon for the charge sheet have been provided to the appellant or not, the respondent submits that he is not aware as to what has been provided by the inquiry officer to the appellant. He further submits that as the information sought was confidential, the same was not provided to the appellant. The respondent made a submission that everything is confidential and cannot be given. On a query by the Commission as to whether natural justice has been provided to the appellant during the process of inquiry, the respondent submits that he is not aware of the matter.

Decision:

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission notes that the respondent has not provided any information to the appellant and is even ignorant of the facts of the case. Every employee has the right to get a copy of complaint, notings, charge-sheet, and every piece of paper which is relied upon against him in a disciplinary proceeding. He should get the opportunity to defend himself and in the end, he should also get the copy of inquiry report, order, judgment or sentence pronounced.

Under the Service (Conduct) Rules, an official against whom disciplinary proceeding is initiated, is duly entitled to access all relevant documents on the basis of which charges are framed to enable him to prove his innocence. Accordingly, in order to enable the appellant to prove his innocence, the respondent must provide the relevant documents, which may be available as per section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act. To ensure natural justice in all matters of disciplinary actions, information which is available with the prosecutor should also be available with the officer proceeded against.

In the instant case, the reply given by the CPIO is outright denial of information on ground of confidentiality. Further, no attempt has been made by him to furnish a point-wise response to the RTI application dated 27.01.2014. Once an applicant seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the information seeker except on grounds mentioned in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer or the appellate authority cannot add and introduce new reasons or grounds for rejecting furnishing of information. Adhering to the principle of maximum disclosure, and ensuring natural justice to the information seeker, he should provide information as per the provisions of the Act. In case any information is to be denied, the grounds for doing so should be clearly stated. Merely because the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders is continuing, the information relating to same cannot be denied by saying that it is confidential in nature. The PIO, who is denying information under the RTI Act, must show satisfactory reasons as to why information cannot be disclosed and clearly state exemption provided under the RTI Act. These reasons must be relevant and the opinion of the PIO to deny the information should be reasonable. The opinion of the PIO must be based on some material and cannot be a mere apprehension not supported by any evidence. General statements are not enough. Apprehension should be based on some ground or reason. Denial of a citizen’s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens’ rights. In the instant case, PIO denied the information merely by stating that the information sought is confidential without invoking any exemption under the RTI Act on a flimsy ground. The Commission also notes that the FAA, AIIMS has not responded to the appeal and has failed to fulfil his responsibility under the Act. This is flagrant denial of justice since the appellant had gone in first appeal against the arbitrary and whimsical denial of information by the CPIO. The Commission would like to caution FAA to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act in letter and spirit.

As per the respondent’s averments before the Commission the disciplinary proceeding/inquiry against the officer is over and it is pending/due before the competent authority for awarding punishment. In such a case, all papers/documents related to the inquiry should have been made available to the appellant during the course of inquiry itself. Accordingly, the appellant should be provided access to all relevant records as asked for by him. In order to enable the appellant to seek natural justice in the matter of disciplinary action against him, there is no reason why a copy of preliminary inquiry report or approval of disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee cannot be provided to the appellant.

The CPIO is, therefore, directed to furnish a point-wise response and provide information on the basis of available records, within 15 days of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. If necessary, the appellant would be free to seek inspection of the relevant records so as to identify the required information on the basis of which he should be able to prove his innocence.

The respondent initially out rightly denied information on a flimsy plea and during the course of hearing remained adamant in reiterating his stand even when questioned on the logic behind his decision by the Commission and indicating the sections of the Act used by him for denial of information. Show cause notice is issued to the Shri K.P. Singh, A.O./CPIO, All India Institute of Medical Sciences as to why penalty should not be imposed on him u/s 20 RTI Act, 2005 for outright deliberate denial of information on whimsical ground to the appellant. PIO is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on 28.05.2015 at 4 PM on which date he must present himself before the Commission. Written submission, if any, should reach the Commission by 21.05.2015 positively. If there are other persons responsible for not providing the information to the appellant, the PIO is directed to inform such persons in writing about the show cause notice and direct them to submit their written submissions, if any, and to attend the Commission’s hearing on the above mentioned date. In case the PIO fails to comply with the Commission’s directions, it will be construed that he is the only person responsible for not providing information to the appellant as sought in his RTI application. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Yashovardhan Azad)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Raju Singh v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences in F. No.CIC/YA/A/2014/001034