Central Information Commission
Shri D.N. Gade vs Mumbai Port Trust on 29 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00057
Dated, the 29th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri D.N. Gade
Respondents : Mumbai Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing on 18.05.2009 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 21.03.2009. Appellant and respondents were present at NIC Studio at Mumbai. Commission conducted the hearing from its office at New Delhi.
2. The RTI-application of the appellant dated 11.09.2008 comprised five main items of information, in which item 5 comprised six sub-items.
3. The items of queries are as follows:-
"I. Certified copy of fact finding report submitted by Shri S.A.Ghosalkar, enquiry officer. II. Certified copy of Review Committee's Report signed by Manger (SOM), CME and CLO&A i.e. recommendation for continuation of suspension of Shri D.N. Gade for the period of three months from 9.6.2008. III. Certified copy of Review Committee's Report signed by Manager (SOM), CME and CLO&A i.e. recommendation for continuation of suspension of Shri D.N.Gade for the further period of three months from 7.9.2008 IV.(i) Certified copy of MOST's concurrence and endorsement obtained for my suspension from 11.3.2008. IV.(ii) Certified copy of MBPT's submission in this regard to MOST.
V. (i) Certified copy of representation made by few lady officer of Accounts Department to the National Commission for women.
(ii)Certified copies of correspondence exchanged in the matter of complaint with various authorities.
(iii)Certified copy of MOST's letter No.C-14019/12008-PE-II dated 2.5.2008 (i.e. informing the MBPT that not to take AT-29052009-09.doc Page 1 of 3 decision for revocation of suspension of Shri D.N.Gade till the various issued are sorted out)
(iv) Certified copy of MBPT's detailed report submitted in this regard to the MOST.
(v) Certified copy of communication / letter received from National Commission for Women (i.e. regarding complaint against me)
(vi) Certified copies of statement of few lady officers recorded in this regard while investigating the matter departmentally."
4. During the hearing, respondents stated that the information corresponding to items II and III had already been provided to the appellant through CPIO's reply dated 07.10.2008 and the Appellate Authority's order dated 02.12.2008. He also stated that information corresponding to sub-items (i) and (vi) of item V of the query has been provided to the appellant along with charge-sheet served on him as part of an ongoing disciplinary enquiry.
5. Appellant pointed out that he had been served with the charge-sheet on 12.12.2008 under the signature of the Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust ⎯ the public authority. A modified charge-sheet was again served on him on 13.05.2009. It is the appellant's contention that he has been suspended from service with effect from 11.03.2008 for a period of one year on the basis of an order which, he believes, was passed illegally by the Deputy Chairman of the Mumbai Port Trust. Appellant believes that the reason for the respondents not to provide information to the appellant is their fear that the unauthorized action of the Deputy Chairman shall come out into the open. He claims that the disciplinary enquiry against him was due to witch-hunting and a concerted attempt to victimize him. That is the reason why even the most harmless information, which he would even otherwise be entitled to receive as part of the ongoing enquiry process, had been denied to him.
6. On a query from the Commission whether the information contained in appellant's RTI-application could even otherwise be made available to him as documents on the basis of which he would prepare his defence in the enquiry which was current, CPIO replied that he had had no instruction to say anything in this matter.
7. From the submissions of the respondents, it is seen that they had taken an omnibus plea under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to decline AT-29052009-09.doc Page 2 of 3 the information to the appellant on account of the fact that an enquiry in this matter was current. This ground is insufficient to withhold an information so critically required by this appellant to prepare his defence in the ongoing disciplinary enquiry. There is lack of clarity in the submissions of the respondents whether the information as requested by the appellant would be otherwise made available to him.
8. On perusing the documents furnished and hearing the submissions made by both parties, I am of the view that respondents have failed to make out a clear case for withholding the information from the appellant on the ground that it may impede the process of a current enquiry. A plea that the very currency of an enquiry is sufficient reason to attract Section 8(1)(h) is not acceptable in view of various decisions of the Commission and, the decision of the High Court of Delhi in WP/3114/2007 - Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.
9. I also find that the information which the appellant has requested has nothing in it that could be construed as so sensitive as to derail or impede the process of the disciplinary action presently going on against him.
10. I, therefore, consider that respondents were not right in withholding the requested information from the appellant. They are, therefore, directed to disclose all information to the appellant within one week of the receipt of this order. Respondents are, however, allowed to sever from the body of the information disclosed to the appellant such parts of the information whose disclosure would disclose the identities of those furnishing information in confidence in the enquiry.
11. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-29052009-09.doc Page 3 of 3