Report regarding over payment to Dr. Neelima Mondal, Associate Professor in JNU - PIO: The report is under consideration & has not been shared with the Parliament or with any other Section of organisation - CIC upheld denial u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act
11 Oct, 2020
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought copies of the reports submitted by Shri Madhu Ranjan Kumar, Joint Secretary and/or any other official of MHRD (now Ministry of Education) regarding the over payment to Dr. Neelima Mondal, Associate Professor in School of Life Sciences of Jawarharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Grounds for Second appeal
The CPIO has denied providing the information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the information cannot be denied to him by the CPIO while claiming exemption 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; as the information falls under larger public interest as public money has been misused by the authorities of JNU.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 27.02.2019 which was also upheld by the First Appellate Authority.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO’s reply and the FAA’s order, both were appropriate as the matter was under consideration at the relevant time.
On a query to the CPIO regarding the present status of the matter, the CPIO submitted that the matter is still under examination with the competent authorities and since the matter contains many vigilance related issues, the information cannot be divulged at this point of time.
The appellant at this point raised an objection and submitted that since the same issue was raised and discussed in Parliament, the CPIO cannot deny providing this information to him. To this the CPIO submitted that the report which is under consideration has not been shared either with the Parliament or with any other Section of his own organisation and the report is purely confidential in nature until it attains any finality. The Commissions accepts the justification of the CPIO and the exemption claimed by him 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; of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ashok Kumar Jain v. Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, Vigilance Section in File No.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2019/122926, Date of Decision: 07/09/2020