Central Information Commission
V Krishna Kumar vs Central Vigilance Commission on 2 May, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2020/121166
V Krishna Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan, GPO
Complex, Block-A, INA, New
Delhi-110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/01/2022
Date of Decision : 27/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 04/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 05/05/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 20/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23/07/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 14.04.2020 seeking the following information:1
1. Reference: Sanction of prosecution against Officials of EDena Bank -Now Bank of Baroda in the matter Agri Loans at Kakinada branch of EDena Bank against warehouse receipts issued by KVS Prasad of M/s Saibhaya agro storage- ref. CBCID AP letter no. C.N0.1307/C-13/AP-CID/2017
2. Certified copy letter of the sanctioning of prosecution of officials from CVC (Chief Vigilance Commission) New Delhi to CVO (Chief vigilance officer)/General Manager Bank of Baroada Corporate office Mumbai.
3. Certified copy of letter received from CVO Chief Vigilance officer/General Manager Bank of Baroda Corporate office Mumbai To CVC (Chief Vigilance Commission New Delhi).
4. Certified copy of Letter received by CVC (Chief Vigilance Commission) New Delhi from CBCID Regional office Rajamundry Andhra Pradesh The CPIO replied to the appellant on 04.05.2020 stating as follows:-
"The requested information being a third party information is treated is denied under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Moreover as the matter has not been taken to logical conclusion the information is denied under section 8 (1)(h) of RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.05.2020. FAA's order dated 20.05.2020 directed the CPIO as follows:-
"....Shri Umesh Kumar Bhalla, Advisor to check the records and then provide a para-wise reply to the appellant, keeping in view the various provisions contained under the RTI Act.
5. The documents, if any, be provided to the Appellant, free of charge, in view of provisions contained under section 7(6) of the RTI Act,. An appropriate reply may be provided to the Appellant within 15 day of the receipt of these orders."
In compliance with the FAA's order, CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 13.07.2020 stated as follows:-
i) No information is sought under point no. 1. ii) Copy of Commission's communication dated 06.12.2019 to the CVO,
Bank of Baroda advising grant of sanction for prosecution against Shri V Krishna Kumar. We have masked the names of other officers in this letter 2 as per provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act, as the same are of personal nature and exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
iii) & (iv) As the case has not been taken to its logical conclusion, the requested information is denied under provisions of section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Umesh Kumar Bhalla, Advisor & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information on points 3 & 4 of the RTI Application.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for concerns letters containing comments of CVC/CVO in a matter which has not attained finality. He further submitted upon a query from the Commission regarding the stage at which the averred case is pending, that, he has inquired from the concerned bank, the matter is pending trial. He added that further details of the trial will have to be ascertained by him from the concerned trial Court.
The Appellant strongly denied the contentions of the CPIO to state that no case is pending trial against him.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the submissions of the CPIO observes that the CPIO failed to properly justify the denial of the information sought for at points 3 & 4 of the RTI Application as no material argument was forthcoming even as the Commission inquired about the nature of the contents of the averred letter(s) as well as the related trajectory of the case. In this regard, the attention of the CPIO is drawn towards a judgment of 3 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner, 146 (2008) DLT 385, wherein the following was held:
"13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."
Having failed to discharge the onus entrusted upon the CPIO under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act to justify the denial of the information and in the absence of any material on record to justify the denial, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the contents of the letter(s) referred to at points 3 & 4 of the RTI Application and provide a cogent reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available information after redacting any third party related information as well as such contents which may impede the process of trial. While redacting such contents from the averred letters disclosure of which is considered to be an impediment to the trial, the CPIO will provide a proper explanation in his revised reply stating as to how will the disclosure of those contents impede the process of trial as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5