Central Information Commission
Manjit Singh vs Central Vigilance Commission on 11 May, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/900433
Dated 08.05.2017
Appellant : Shri Manjit Singh,
F-34, Galaxy Apartments,
Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122009.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan,
G.P.O. Complex, Block-A, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application dated : 04.11.2015
CPIO' reply dated : 18.11.2015
First Appeal dated : 07.12.2015
FAA's Order dated : 07.01.2016
Second Appeal dated : 22.02.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), New Delhi seeking information pertaining to the disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1965 conducted against him by the CVC, including (i) the date on which the inquiry report was sent from the CVC to the disciplinary authority/Department of Posts and (ii) a certified copy of the Inquiry Report.
CIC/SB/A/2016/900433 Page1
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that information on point no. 2 of the RTI application has been incorrectly denied to him on the pretext that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation, whereas, in the present case no inquiry is pending. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information on point no. 2 of the RTI application.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Manjit Singh and the respondent Shri Paritosh Sarkar, Section Officer, CVC were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought a certified copy of the inquiry report with respect to the disciplinary case initiated against him. However, this information has been incorrectly denied on the grounds that the case has not reached its finality and hence, the disclosure of information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act has been wrongly invoked as the inquiry has been completed. Moreover, the respondent has not clarified how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 18.11.2015 that the disciplinary case against him has not reached its finality and hence, the information sought cannot be disclosed as this would impede the process of investigation and is therefore, exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that the CVC only nominates an inquiry officer (IO) who conducts the inquiry. However, the appointment of the IO and proceedings are conducted by the Disciplinary Authority of the Department concerned. The respondent further submitted that once the inquiry is over, the inquiry report is submitted to the Disciplinary Authority concerned and therefore, it is the responsibility of the Disciplinary Authority of the Department concerned to provide a copy of CIC/SB/A/2016/900433 Page2 the inquiry report to the person against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought has been denied on the grounds of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that the appellant claims that Section 8(1)(h) of the Act has been wrongly invoked as it would not apply to the facts of the present case. However, the Commission in case nos. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007, CIC/AT/A/2007/00010 and CIC/AT/A/2007/00011 dated 10.07.2007 has held as follows:
"17. ..... the term 'investigation' used in Section 8(1)(h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of 'investigation' one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In that sense, an investigation can be an extended investigation........The respondents are, therefore, right in holding that it would be a misnomer to hold that investigation in matters such as this, the moment the Investigating Officer submits his report to the competent authority spells the end of investigation.
In view of the above ratio, it is clear that the term "investigation" used in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act has to be given a wider interpretation and will also include an enquiry conducted during disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act would apply to the present case.
CIC/SB/A/2016/900433 Page3
7. The Commission further observes that in the case of Govind Jha v. Army HQs, CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.06.2006, the Commission had held that "although the rules of disciplinary proceedings provide for disclosure of all documents and information which constitute the basis for the disciplinary action against an employee, yet such employees demand additional information pertaining to them through the RTI Act. These demands are mostly about disclosure of file-notings and other materials which otherwise would not be available to the employee under the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules. It has been the consistent position of the Commission that a disciplinary enquiry assumes the characteristics of an ongoing investigation and the material thereof cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act."
8. The Commission in another case of Shri P.K. Saha v. Shri D.B. Janotkar, General Manager (A&EE) & PIO, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, CIC/AT/A/2007/00333 dated 17.08.2007 had observed that "When a specific law lays down the scope and the range of information to be disclosed to a person facing specified action at the hands of a public authority, it will be a sure interference with the process of investigation under that specific law if the affected person, or anybody else in his place, is allowed under the RTI Act to access a larger range of information than would be otherwise authorized." The Commission had also observed that information pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings should not be disclosed and the reason why such disclosures should not be encouraged is governance.
9. The Commission, in accordance with the above-mentioned precedents, is of the view that the information sought by the appellant cannot be disclosed as it is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, since the proceedings in the disciplinary case initiated against him have not reached a logical conclusion.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
CIC/SB/A/2016/900433 Page4
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/900433 Page5