The names and details of the criminal cases registered against the IRS officers of Customs and Excise & Income Tax etc. was sought - CIC: Disclose the number of cases where disciplinary / criminal proceedings were underway in respect of the IRS officers
13 Mar, 2019RTI I: File No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166531-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the names and details of the criminal cases registered against the IRS officers of Customs and Excise Department/Service of the Country, as on date along with the copies of files, notesheets and various letters, documents exchanged between the Department of Revenue and different offices etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.07.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India SLP (C) No. 247734 of 2012 (Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others), denied disclosure of information 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 the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the names and details of the criminal cases registered against the IRS officers of Customs and Excise Department/Service of the Country, as on date along with the copies of files, notesheets and various letters, documents exchanged between the Department of Revenue and different offices etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.07.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India SLP (C) No. 247734 of 2012 (Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others), denied disclosure of information 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 the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI II: File No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166530-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the various criminal cases registered against different IRS officers of the Central Customs and Excise Department/Service between 01.01.2010 till the date of filing the application and demanded the copy of all the files including the Note-sheet and the various letters and documents exchanged between the Department of Revenue and different offices. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.07.2017 denied disclosure of information under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI III: File No. CIC/DGITV/A/2017/166535-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copies of files including the note-sheets and various letters, documents exchanged between the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and different offices with regard to various criminal cases registered against the IRS officers from the period 01.01.2010, till date etc. The CPIO, DGI (Vigilance) vide letter dated 10.07.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for point no. 01 and 02 exemption under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 was sought and for remaining points, application was transferred to the CPIO, CBDT. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, the Respondent informed the Commission that the RTI application was transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to US / CPIO, CBDT on 07.07.2017).
RTI IV: File No. CIC/DGITV/A/2017/166533-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the names and details of the criminal cases registered against the IRS officers of the Income Tax Department of the Country, as on date along with the copies of files, note-sheets and various letters, documents exchanged between the Department of Revenue and different offices etc. The CPIO, DGI (Vigilance) vide letter dated 10.07.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for point no. 01 and 02 exemption under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 was sought and for remaining points, application was transferred to the CPIO, CBDT. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, the Respondent informed the Commission that the RTI application was transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to US / CPIO, CBDT on 07.07.2017).
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Nutan Thakur through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Diwakar Singh, DDIT (Vig.) and Mohd. Tariq, Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise
The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI applications and stated that the information sought had not been received although it was a matter of public interest. In its reply, the Respondents reiterated that the information sought was exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being personal information of the concerned officials. The Appellant however contested the averments of the Respondents and stated that the conduct of the Civil Servants was a public interest matter and the information should be disclosed. On a query from the Commission regarding the proviso to Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as follows:-
“..the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State legislature shall not be denied to any person…”, no satisfactory reply was offered by the Respondents. It was however submitted that whenever Parliament questions were answered on the aforesaid subject matter, only the number of officials against whom disciplinary / vigilance proceedings were underway was indicated and their names were never disclosed. The Respondents volunteered to share details of the numbers of officials against whom the disciplinary / vigilance cases were pending as communicated in various Parliament matters. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated NIL (File No. CIC/DGITV/A/2017/166535, & CIC/DGITV/A/2017/166533) wherein while showing dissatisfaction due to non receipt of any response from the concerned CPIOs, it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to direct the concerned CPIOs to provide her the desired information as solicited. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated NIL (File No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166530 & CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166531) wherein while contesting the response of the CPIO, it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide her the desired information as the same were in the larger public interest. Moreover, it was submitted that in the case cited by the CPIO in his reply, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the denial of information had also carved out the disclosure of information if the same would serve the larger public interest.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 07.01.2019 (File No. CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166530 & CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166531), wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO, it was stated that the Appellant should have filed the First Appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order i.e., after 20.07.2017. A reference was also made to the DoPT OM dated 14.08.2013, CIC decision in CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013 and the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 in support of their contention regarding denial of information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
“13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 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. of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
“5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.”
The Appellant could not contest the submissions of the Respondent or establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondents i.e. DGOV (CBIC) and DGIT (Vig.) to disclose the number of cases where disciplinary / vigilance / criminal proceedings were underway in respect of the IRS officers in accordance with the proviso to Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, as sought by the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Nutan Thakur v. CPIO, Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance); CPIO, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBDT; CPIO, Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166531-BJ+ CIC/DGVCE/A/2017/166530-BJ+ CIC/DGITV/A/2017/166535-BJ+ CIC/DGITV/A/2017/166533-BJ; Date of Decision: 09.01.2019