Central Information Commission
Shri D.P. Shinde vs Mumbai Port Trust on 26 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000838
Dated, the 26th March, 2010.
Appellant : Shri D.P. Shinde
Respondents : Mumbai Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing on 25.02.2010 through videoconferencing (VC). Appellant was present in person at NIC VC facility at Mumbai. Respondents ― represented by the CPIO ― were present at the same venue. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 17.08.2009, requested disclosure of three items of information. Presently, it is only item no.III, which is in second- appeal. This reads as follows:-
"Charge Memo to Shri C.S. Murty, Traffic Manager (Retd) with all enclosures under No.SECY/P/GEE-TM/11567/24-12-2003 and reply to the same by Shri C.S. Murty."
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 07.09.2009, declined to disclose the information citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO noting in the process that the appellant had not attempted even to dispute the points made by the CPIO while conveying his inability to furnish the information requested.
5. During the hearing, it was pointed out by the CPIO that appellant was facing a departmental enquiry and had requested for the very same information from the Enquiry Officer, which was turned down. CPIO argued that once an Enquiry Officer under the statute governing disciplinary enquiries, denies certain information to a person, it was not open to that person to seek the same information through the RTI Act.
6. Appellant has argued that this information, vital to prove his innocence in the disciplinary enquiry, was purposefully withheld from AT-26032010-08.doc Page 1 of 2 him in order to inflict on him a wrongful punishment. He has further pointed out that one third-party, Mr.C.S.Murty was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding on the orders of the Chairman of the public authority on the basis of, what appellant describes as, "my submission to then Chairman on 08.04.2002". However, the proceedings against Mr. Murty were closed on the basis of "his reply to the charge-memo". Appellant believes that total transparency was not maintained in dealing with the case of Mr.Murty by the Mumbai Port Trust Administration. The documents he now wants would have proved the alleged double-standards adopted by the Port Administration in the matters concerning the third-party, Mr.Murty and the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings against them.
7. During the hearing, appellant could not clearly bring out whether the disciplinary proceedings he was referring to and which involved both him and the third-party, Mr.Murthy related to the same event or they were separate and distinct. In case the disciplinary proceedings against the said Mr.Murty and the appellant were on account of a common set of alleged offences, then the Commission's decision, in case No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000821 dated 16.03.2010 in Amarjeet Singh Vs. Director General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, would apply. In case the two proceedings were independent of each other, in that case, a view will need to be taken to consult the said, Mr.Murty as third-party and to decide the matter about disclosing information in the light of those consultations under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
8. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Shri P. Mohana Chandran to examine the matter de-novo and to make a decision in the light of the facts available on record and as instructed at paragraph 7 above. He has four weeks' time to complete these deliberations and to pass an order.
9. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-26032010-08.doc Page 2 of 2