Status of a case, investigation, prosecution & file notings of the findings were sought - PIO: file notings cannot be provided as it has the names of various persons - CIC: details regarding the findings and reasoning behind the conclusions to be provided

O R D E R

RTI application

1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 26.4.2012 seeking information about the status of a case, status of investigation, prosecution and photocopies of file notings of the findings. In all, information has been sought on 5 points. The PIO responded on 23.5.2012.

2. Not satisfied with the reply of PIO, the appellant filed his first appeal on 7.7.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 17.7.2012 giving some additional information. The appellant approached the Commission on 30.8.2012 in second appeal.

Hearing

3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 26.4.2012 that he was seeking information about a complaint made on 3.1.2012 against some officers of the respondent organization involving corruption and misuse of huge public money in the purchase of a machinery. The appellant stated that he is seeking information on the following points:

(i) conclusions reached in the investigation;

(ii) file notings of the concerned file; and

(iii) status of the prosecution.

5. The respondent explained that investigation on the complaint filed on 3.1.2012 was conducted with regard to purchase of an equipment and this investigation was completed on 28.6.2012 and that on the basis of the investigations done, the competent authority has reached a conclusion that this was not a case for major penalty, but for a minor penalty and that the process of award of minor penalty has since been initiated.

6. The appellant stated that names of the persons proposed for awarding major penalty are already available on the CVC website and the respondent is trying to conceal the information needlessly.

7. Coming to the questions raised by the appellant, the respondent stated that the conclusions reached in the investigation would be conveyed to the appellant. The respondent further stated that providing of file notings having names of various persons would be problematic.

8. The respondent stated that details regarding the findings and reasoning behind the findings (conclusions) of the enquiry will be provided.

Decision

9. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, information about the findings and reasoning behind the findings of the enquiry in context of the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commission

Citation: Shri D.K. Chakraborty v. Chittaranjan Locomotive Works in Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2012/002984/VS/06020