Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Jain vs Department Of Revenue on 21 December, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000888
Dated: 21.12.2012
Name of Appellant : Shri R.K. Jain
Name of Respondent : Directorate General of Vigilance
Customs & Central Excise
Date of Hearing : 05.11.2012
ORDER
Shri R.K. Jain, hereinafter called the appellant has filed this appeal dated 23.1.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi for providing incorrect information in response to his RTI-application dated 20.9.2011. The matter came for hearing on 05.11.2012. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Mihir Kumar, Additional Commissioner & FAA, Shri Sudhir Sharma, Assistant Commissioner and Shri R.K. Sudan, Vigilance Officer.
2. The appellant filed an application dated 20.9.2011 under the RTI Act, 2005, in which he sought the following information - "(A) Please provide year-wise status of the case received by the Vigilance Directorate during the year 2005 to 201 and cases disposed of during the years 2005-2011 and number of matter pending with the Directorate Vigilance as on 1.9.201 (or any other date of the year 2011 as readily available). The information may be provided zone-wise, if available otherwise available information may be provided; (B) Please 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000888 provide copies of Annual Statistics and Annual Report submitted by Directorate of Vigilance to CBEC, Ministry of Finance for the year 2007 to 2011; and (C) Please provide Inspection of all records, documents, files, note sheets relating to information sought at Point (A) & (B)." The CPIO vide his letter No. V-500/118/RTI/2011/4130 dated 14.10.2011 informed the appellant as follows: "(A) No such statistical data is maintained either with Administrative Branch or with Statistical/Technical Branch. However, in case information is required about a particular officer, same can be provided, if permissible by the Act/law; (B) No annual report is being sent to CBEC/Ministry; and (C) Not applicable in view of above".
3. Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first-appeal on 8.11.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. V.500/RTI/Appeals/118/ 2011/5084 dated 21.12.2011 held that the CPIO provided information on the basis of the replies given by the concerned branches who are the likely custodians of information. In case the appellant desired the zone-wise information then he should have made an application to the CPIO of the concerned Zonal Units and he cannot plead that the CPIO should have transferred the same to the concerned Zonal unit. However, despite this, the CPIO should have transferred his application to the appropriate CPIOs. As regards to voluntarily disclosure of information u/s 4 of RTI Act is concerned, number of cases can be uploaded and made available in the electronic form but year-wise status of case cannot be made available on this medium because such an attempt would be tantamount to malign the image and reputation of an officer against whom a complaint is pending which is subjected to investigation in the light of prevailing vigilance guidelines and adjudication by the competent authority. Such a premature voluntary disclosure would be against the spirit and contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act. However, the FAA directed the CPIO to transfer the application to Zonal Units to provide the information within 10 days. In compliance with the directions of the FAA, the Zonal Units of 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000888 Mumbai and Chennai vide letters dated 4.1.2012 and 4.1.2012 respectively provided requisite information to the appellant.
4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant submits that the FAA has not appreciated that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information on the ground that no statistical data is maintained by Administrative Branch. In fact such data is forwarded by the Zonal Units to the D.G. Vigilance, but the FAA has not directed the CPIO to provide the information. The CPIO has wrongly denied information on the ground that no statistical data is maintained with Administrative Branch or with Statistical/ Technical Branch. The statistical data about the month wise/year wise processing of cases by Zonal Units is also forwarded to te DG Vigilance (HQ), therefore, such information is available within the jurisdiction of the CPIO, DG Vigilance (HQ), New Delhi. Every public authority has records and details of its activities and periodic performer and pendency of matters/case. The FAA has erred in holding that if the statistical data about year wise processing of cases with the DG Vigilance is voluntary disclosed on the website it will malign the image and reputation of the officers against whom the complaint is pending. The FAA in his zeal to block the information related to the performance to the DG Vigilance being put to public scrutiny has not realized that the statistics/processing of cases does not contain name of the officers and details of the complaints and investigation. The very fact that the Zonal Units have been maintaining such data and have now provided the same to him, repels the stand of the FAA.
5. The respondent CPIO states that he has replied to the appellant based on the information provided to him by the holder of information.
6. The Commission is of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant that when Zonal Units of the respondent are maintaining such information there is no reason to believe that the Headquarter of Directorate of Vigilance is not maintaining such data. CPIO has prima-facie provided 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000888 wrong/misleading information to the appellant. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to Shri Sudhir Sharma, Assistant Commissioner (Vig) & CPIO asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing wrong/misleading information to the appellant.
7. The Commission also directs the CPIO to provide requisite information as requested by the appellant at Point No. (A) of his RTI application to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri R.K. Jain, 1512,-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi-110003.
Shri Sudhir Sharma, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO, Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, 3rd Floor, Samrat Hotel, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri Hotel, New Delhi-110021.
The First Appellate Authority, Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, 3rd Floor, Samrat Hotel, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri Hotel, New Delhi-110021.5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000888