Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajinder Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 28 February, 2017

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
   Club building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067.
                               Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
                              Email: [email protected]
File No : CIC/VS/A/2015/001425+1731-AB
          CIC/BJ/C/2016/000022-AB


In the matter of:

Rajinder Kumar
109-D, RCF Colony, Hussainpur-144602,
Distt. Kapurthala, Punjab

                                                                            ...Appellant
                                            VS
Central Public Information Officer,
M/o Railways
Sr. PIO, Rail Coach Factory, Hussainpur
Distt. Kapurthala, Punjab-144602
               &
Central Public Information Officer,
The Director, Vigilance M/o Railway,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
               &
Central Public Information Officer,
Dy. CVO, Rail Coach Factory, Hussainpur,
Distt. Kapurthala, Punjab-144602
                                                                           ...Respondents


                                              Dates
RTI application                       :      23.09.2014 & 08.12.2014 & 23.09.2014
CPIO reply                            :      25.10.2014 & 08.01.2015 & 25.10.2014
First Appeal                         :       25.11.2014 & 25.02.2015 & 25.11.2014
FAA Order                             :      10.02.2015 & 31.03.2015 & 10.02.2015
Second Appeal                         :      08.05.2015 & 24.06.2015 & 18.04.2016
Date of hearing                      :       09.02.2017


Information sought

in File No : CIC/VS/A/2015/001425-AB:

The appellant had sought attested copies of statement(s) of Shri R P Mall in the dept enquiry case against him, depositions of witnesses in the same dept enquiry case, investigation report, 1 advice of the vigilance department, copy of chargesheet served on the concerned officer, defence statement, letter of the disciplinary authority, copy of the appeal and attested copy of the decision etc. Information sought in File No : CIC/VS/A/2015/001731-AB:

The appellant had sought attested copy of the letter vide which Shri Narottam Das was first inducted into the RCF Tender Committee, first removed from the RCF Tender Committee, letter vide which he was again inducted into the RCF Tender Committee and letter vide which he was again removed from the RCF Tender Committee. Information sought in File No : CIC/BJ/C/2016/000022-AB The complainant had sought attested copies of statement taken from Shri R P Mall, depositions made by the witnesses, investigation report, charges proposed by the vigilance department for inclusion in the proposed chargesheet, chargesheet, defence statement, letter of the disciplinary authority, copy of the appeal and attested copy of the decision. Grounds for Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Order

Appellant      : Present

Respondent : Mr. Baldev Raj, PIO

CIC/VS/A/2015/001425-AB & CIC/BJ/C/2016/000022-AB The appellant submitted both his cases were appeal cases & not complaint cases. As one had been admitted as a complaint case by the Central Registry of the CIC, the case no. CIC/BJ/C/2016/000022 was treated as an appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the basis of the submission by the appellant during the hearing.

During the hearing the CVO relied on decision of the Commission in case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 and stated that the information is exempted u/s 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act. The order was perused. The relevant portion of the said CIC order is extracted below:

"9.It was also pointed out in that order that protection needs to be provided to the officers of sensitive Department such as the vigilance in performing their duties from the probing eyes of outsiders."

The appellant submitted that he was pressing for information in regard to point nos 1 to 3 of his RTI application dated 23.09.2014. He also submitted that he was satisfied with the rest of the information furnished to him by the respondent.

During the hearing, the CPIO submitted that the enquiry was since complete. He also submitted that the same subject matter was dealt by another bench of the Commission in File no. CIC/VS/A/2015/002763.

The order of the CIC was perused and it was found that the RTI application related to the File no. CIC/VS/A/2015/002763, was dated 29.04.2015 but the present RTI application is dated 23.09.2014 and the information sought is also different.

As the appellant was only pressing for information in respect of Paras 1 to 3 of the said RTI application, the Commission found it appropriate to scrutinise the information sought for in the said paras. The information sought for is as follows:

"1. Attested copy of the statement taken from Shri R P Mall.

2. Attested copies of the deposition(s) made by the witnesses, if any or state clearly if there was no witness of any person.

3. Attested copy of the investigation report"

The CPIO had replied as follows:

" The information demanded could not be provided as per Para 8(1)(g) of RTI act, 2005. Railway Board vide letter dated 04.11.2011 also circulated the decision of CIC dated 12.11.2010, wherein it was mentioned in Para 7 that information asked regarding vigilance investigation and Disciplinary matters shall not be disclosed."

At the outset, the Commission observes that the CPIO's reply was flawed, as the para 7 of the order dated 12.11.2010 in File no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 did not hold that the information asked regarding vigilance investigation and disciplinary matters shall not be disclosed. The CPIO had interpreted the said order of the CIC in a lopsided manner for reason(s) best known to him.

The issue is regarding furnishing of information in regard to only three paras of the said RTI application. The Commission further observes that all the above stated three paras are exempted u/s 8(1)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act.

The appellant was unable to demonstrate larger public interest involved in the case. Hence, the exemptions claimed by the appellant are tenable under the RTI Act.

With the above observation, the appeals are dismissed.

CIC/VS/A/2015/001731-AB During the hearing appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply.

The PIO submitted that a CBI enquiry was pending against Shri Narottam Das. Hence, the information was denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

On perusal of record, it was seen that the then CPIO Shri Chottey Lal had given a severely flawed reply. On query by the Commission the present CPIO submitted that the third party Mr. Narottam Das was called for enquiry by CBI, but he also affirmed that there was no investigation conducted or any kind of enquiry pending against the RCF Tender Committee by any investigative agency.

Based on the submission, the Commission came to the conclusion that the then CPIO had mechanically invoked Sec 8(1)(e), (g), (h) & (j) of the RTI Act, without any basis.

The then CPIO in his reply had not given any legal justification for invoking the above exemption clauses, moreover the present CPIO was able to justify the stand of the then CPIO in this regard.

The Commission is constrained to issue warning to the then CPIO to apply his mind properly before invoking exemption clause(s) under the RTI Act. The present CPIO is directed to provide para wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant, free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act, within 15 days of the receipt of this order.

With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.

[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 5 6