Central Information Commission
Mr.Mahendra Singh vs Western Railway on 11 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000513/3166
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000513
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.Mahendra Singh
1617/C New Railway Officers Flats
Brook Road, Hubli-20,
Karnatka.
Respondent : Mahavir Singh
Dy.CVO(Engg.) & CPIO Western Railway Headquarter Office, Churchgate, Mumbai-20.
RTI application filed on : 05/08/2008 PIO replied : 11/09/2008 First appeal filed on : 15/10/2008 First Appellate Authority order 25/11/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 12/02/2009
The Appellant had asked following points in his application under RTI Act, 2005 regarding a decoy check where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated:-
Particulars of Information sought:-
1. Copy of complaint along with proof/documents submitted by complainers (which was received from reliable sources) against me under which a decoy check conducted on me (AS Smm (DL) Sabarmati, WR) on 16/08/07.
2. Copy of permission from competent authority for conducting decoy check over me (AS Smm (DL) Sabarmati, WR) on 16/08/07.
3. Copy of report send to cvs for getting Ist stage clearance.
4. Name, designation, caste and religion of decoy team who had been conducted decoy check over me (AS Smm (DL) Sabarmati, WR) on 16/08/07.
5. Copy of codal provision or circular under which Ist stage clearance is required in the case of vigilance investigation against group B officer.
6. Copy of Ist stage clearance given by Central Vigilance Commission in the decoy check over me (AS Smm (DL) Sabarmati, WR) on 16/08/08.
7. Copy of power vested with railway vigilance inspector for detention of any railway employee/officer without giving him any opportunity for taking food/water etc. and even denial of natural call.
8. Copy of Act of Para of Article of constitution of India under which vigilance. Manual of Railway has been given legal authority by court of law.
9. Copy of Schedule of Powers of Chief Vigilance Inspector or investigation inspector in respect of following:-
1) Can he take personal search of an officer in presence of other class-III staff and officer if so under which Act or Govt. rule? Copy of such Act/Rule authority may be provided.
2) Can he utilize Railway protection force over any Railway officer and order to beat him? If so, Copy of such Act/Rule authority may be provided.
3) Can he get conducted medical examination of an officer for investigation? If so, Copy of such Act/Rule authority may be provided.
4) Can he authorized to kept an officer under his custody with the help of Railway Protection force for his investigation without giving a single drop of water and food from 11 am to 10 pm. If so, copy of such Act/Rule authority may be provided.
5) Can he take help of private doctors for his investigation? If so, copy of Circular/Act/Article of constitution of India required.
6) Can he keep an officer under his custody with the help of Railway Protection force without informing to his family members & immediate controlling officer of that officer? If so, copy of Circular/Act/Article of constitution of India required.
7) What for Railway protection force are being deputed with vigilance Inspectors? Please give the copy of Circular/Act/Article of constitution of India.
10. Copy of Duties list and Powers of RPF staff during decoy check in respect of following points:-
a) Can he clutch/hold (manhandled) the body of an officer for not moving from his place during decoy check? If so, copy of Circular/Art/Article of constitution of India required.
b) Can he apply force for recovering gratification given by decoy without conformity? If so, copy of Circular/Act/Article of constitution of India required.
11. Copy of govt. Circular or Act under which Railway Vigilance has been vested Powers to apply chemical on GC notes for finger prints and to clutch any officer red handed.
12. Copy of circular, Act or Govt. notification under which vigilance has been nominated an investigation agency. If so, what are the powers for investigation at what level of authority & what type of investigation? Please give copy of circular and Govt. notification also.
13. Transcript & soft copy of recording made by mobile during decoy check as stated in transcript of CD prepared for conversation by forensic lab Gandhi Nagar Gujarat.
The PIO's reply.
PIO had replied that "The information sought by you in your application dated 05.08.2008 are related to a decoy check where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. The proceedings in this case have still not been completed and information sought for by you, is exempt under Section 8(1) (h), 8(1) (j) and 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act."
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
The First Appellate Authority ordered "I find that vide your above referred Appeal, you have solicited information on 14 number of items in connection with decoy wherein disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and other related Information. I have got the issue further examined by the Vigilance department and item-wise information received from PIO Vigilance had been provided."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : absent Respondent : Mr. DK. Chaudhary, on behalf of Mr. Mahavir Singh, PIO The PIO says that disclosing the vigilance report would disclose the identity of vigilance officers. The PIO also claims that this is personal information relating to the Appellant. The case is under DR proceedings and proceeding in this case has not been completed. All the RUDs related to the DAR has been given to the charged officer who appellant here has been supplied by the DA. He identity of the vigilance team officers, investigation reports cannot be made public because the departmental prosecution of the offenders has not yet been completed. All material related to chargesheet and RUD has been given to charged officer. If he has any doubt over RUDs, and other authority, he may ask from RO. Vigilance manual, CUC are framework of railway vigilance working and relevant information has been supplied to appellant. If he has any doubt over authority of vigilance manual and vigilance working, he may approach to grievance redressal authority.
Section 8 (1) (h) puts the responsibility on the PIO to squarely explain coherently how giving the information would 'impede the process of investigation.' Hon'ble Justice Ravindra Bhat in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided On: 03.12.2007 has stated, "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'.
The PIO has not shown a reasonable ground to convince the Commission that disclosing the information would 'impede the process of investigation.' The Commission however directs the PIO to blank out all the names of inquiry officers and sources by severing this under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information after severing the names of inquiry officers and sources to the appellant before 25 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 11th May, 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)