Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 15 February, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
Date of Hearing: 09/02/2021 Date of Decision: 09/02/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, PIO (Vigilance); Shri V.Balaji, PIO (HR), present
over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him in respect of point No. C-1 to 8 and 10 of the RTI application, which are stated below:
C-1. Whether his complaint dated 07/01/2017 was received by CVO, SPMCIL, New Delhi from CVC, New Delhi. If yes, provide a copy of the correspondence and noting in this regard.
2. Date of receipt of his complaint dated 07/01/2017 alongwith letter received from CVC, New Delhi, file No. along with daily progress from the date of receipt till the date of disposal of the complaint.
3. Copies of the documents which are prepared/executed in Vigilance Department of SPMCIL, New Delhi and action taken report alongwith the file noting and signature of the officers.
4. Copies of the documents which are prepared/executed in Vigilance Department of SPMCIL, New Delhi & issued to India Government Mint, Mumbai and action taken report along with the file noting and signature of the officers.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The NIC staff informed that the appellant informed over phone that he is unable to remain present as he is busy in some other Court case. Further, an e- mail was received at 12.36 p.m on the date of hearing wherein the appellant requested for adjournment but the same could not be accepted due to paucity of time and late receipt of such a request. He should have made an advance request for adjournment with valid reasons. As far as his request for audio hearing is concerned, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as already a VC venue was fixed with a scheduled appointment. In case of unavoidable circumstances only can audio hearing be considered at the discretion of the bench depending on the valid reasons given for the same. Therefore, the bench decided the case on merits. The appellant pressed for information on points no. 1 to 8 and 10 in his second appeal. The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 09.01.2019. He further submitted that file notings cannot be given being exempted u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. On a query by the Commission to substantiate his plea, the CPIO relied on the decision of the Commission dated 12.11.2010 in case no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 wherein it was held as under:
"In K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/0617, Dote of Decision: 16.09.2009, wherein it was held that the file-notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act The operating portion of that order read as follows:-
"6. This is not the first case in which employees of a public authority have demanded disclosure of file-notings in matters of vigilance and disciplinary enquiries held against them. In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to. Frequently, officers recording such notes were juniors to those in respect of whom the case was being processed. Naturally, no officer recording the note wanted his identity to be disclosed lest he became the victim himself later on the hands of the senior person, whose conduct it became his duty to examine at some stage. Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, ond sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested porties. " 7. It is my belief, therefore, that a public authority which is authorized to hold file notings in sensitive files, such as vigilance and disciplinary matters, confidential under the provisions of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act can also hold such documents (file notings) confidential under Section 11(1) of RTI Act read with Section 2(n), on satisfying certain conditions. Section 2(n) of RTI Act, which states that .........renders a public authority holding the information a "third -party" in respect of the confidential information it holds. Since the information satisfies the requirement of being a third-party information, it being confidential as well as it comes within the scope of Section 11(1)...
8 Since the matter comes squarely within the purview of Section 11(1) being a confidential third-party information, the reason why it can be disclosed is that it is in public interest and, not otherwise. It needs to be proved that public interest supersedes the protected interest if such information were to be disclosed..................
I do not think that applying Section 10(1) and hiding the names of the authors of the file-notings will serve any purpose. As has been rightly pointed out by the respondents, even without the authors' names, the identity of the authors of the notes could be disclosed by reference to the hierarchies through which the file passed as well as the handwriting in which the notes were recorded. "
He further relied on the decision of the earlier bench of the Commission in case. No.CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017 in which it was held as follows:
" 7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information related to CVC has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no action on part of CPIO, CVC is pending. The Commission further observes that the CPIO, North- Eastern Railways has not provided the copy of the inquiry report in respect of appellant's complaint on the plea that the matter relates to a vigilance enquiry and the disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated on completion of the said inquiry. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12. I 1.20I0, wherein the Commission hos relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.................................., In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be outhorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentiality held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(d of the RTI Act."
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had provided a point-wise reply. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and had filed a first appeal. The FAA vide order dated 13.02.2019 had upheld the reply of the CPIO in respect of points no. 1,3 to 6, 8 and 10. Further, the FAA had provided a revised reply in respect of point no. 7 of the RTI application. Point no. 2 was also replied to by the CPIO. The information sought, which was denied was done by merely stating that the copies of all correspondence pages and notings of vigilance cases cannot be disclosed as these are confidential and sensitive in nature. Hence the information sought is denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. However, during the hearing the CPIO had suitably substantiated his case that the same are exempted u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. However, he is advised to be careful and provide reasoned replies instead of merely quoting exemption clauses while denying information.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no ground to intervene in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date Copy to:
1. Central Public Information Officer Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) RTI Cell, 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001