Central Information Commission
B Srinivasa Rao vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 3 March, 2023
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/CCITH /A/2022/634354
B Srinivasa Rao अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, Hyderabad,
Vigilance Section, RTI Cell,
10th Floor, D Block, IT Tower.
AC Guards, Hyderabad-500004,
Telangana ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/03/2023
Date of Decision : 01/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 17/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 06/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 07/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2022 seeking the following information:1
"It is submitted that in the Minutes of Review Committee mentioned above, copy furnished to me, at S.no.11, the Committee had stated as under:
"Addl Commissioner of Incometax(Hqrs)(Admn&Vig) and Deputy Commissioner of Income tax (Hqrs)(Vig), O/o.PrCCIT, AP &TS, have furnished the list of Group B Officers (along with records), who have completed 50/55 years of age, who have faced or currently facing departmental proceedings and/or criminal prosecution launched by CBI in addition to pending complaints against them."
In this context, I request you to kindly provide the following information in my own case under the RTI Act, 2005.
1. Please give details of the records in my own case, furnished by the Addl CIT(Hqrs)(Admn)(Vig) to the Review Committee.
2. Please give the date of furnishing the records in my own case, along with the relevant correspondence between them.
3. Please give the details of pending complaints against me, which were furnished to the Review Committee."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 17.05.2022 stating as under:
S. Information Sought Reply
No
1 Copies of the File Notes, Order Sheet Enclosed - 2 pages of order sheet notings
Notes, Correspondence by Review with this letter.
Committee. Correspondence by Review Committee is
already shared vide this office letter dt
25.04.2022.
2 Date of receipt and date of The applicant's case was reviewed by the
examination of the applicant's Service Review Committee on 25.11.2019 and Records, APARs and other information Minutes of this Meeting have already by the Review Committee from the been shared vide this office letter dt Internal Committee or Department. 25.04.2022. 3 Details of documents/records reviewed As outlined in Minutes of Review by Review Committee for Committee meeting, already shared vide recommending the applicant's case for this office letter dt 25.04.2022. compulsory retirement order under rule 56(j) and copies of correspondence relating to the review of the applicant's service record.
2Being dissatisfied that the reply of the CPIO has no relation to his RTI queries, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 07.06.2022, held as under:
"In view of the above, the CPIO has stated that he has furnished the information sought in your RTI application dt 08.05.2022, vide letter dt 17.05.2022, sent through speed post to the above address. Further, the CPIO stated that from the track consignment it is seen that letter dt 17.05.2022 was delivered to the above address on 23.05.2022 (Copy of Track Consignment enclosed for ready reference). Further the CPIO stated that the applicant was intimated in RTI portal with the comments -- Vide this office letter dt 17.05.2022, reply was sent to the applicant.
Further, as stated by you in the above appeal that the CPIO did not respond to your reminder dt 25.05.2022, the CPIO stated that no such reminder was received in the O/o Pr.CCIT, Hyderabad, till date.
In view of the above, as requested by you, a copy of letter dt 17.05.2022 of the CPIO is being resent for your information."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"The information sought for by me vide my RTI Application under reference first cited above, the CPIO has stated the information was provided vide letter dated 17/05/2022. The information provided vide letter dated 17/05/2022 by the CPIO is in compliance to the order of the Information Commissioner, CIC, New Delhi against my RTI Application dated 09/01/2020, which is a different one. But the CPIO had not provided any information in response to my RTI application filed on 08/05/2022. Therefore, a reminder letter dated 25/05/2022 was filed before the CPIO seeking the information. There is no response from the CPIO.
Aggrieved with the reply of CPIO, an appeal was filed before the Addl CIT (Vig)(Admn), Hyderabad on 06/06/2022 (Copy enclosed) stating that I have not received any reply from the CPIO in response to my application filed on 08/05/2022 under the RTI Act. In response to my appeal, the Appellate Authority has disposed off the same stating that the CPIO has provided the information vide letter dt 17/05/2022 and enclosed copy of the said letter."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
3The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: B Sashi Kanth, Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (HQrs)(Vigilance) & CPIO present through video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the reply specific to the instant RTI Application was provided on 14.06.2022 and the confusion that ensued due to the reply of 17.05.2022 referred above was also explained therein at length.
Upon a query from the Commission as to whether the Appellant received the reply of 14.06.2022, the Appellant feebly argued that he has asked for details of complaints against him and that it is his personal case therefore the information cannot be denied to him. He also stated that he has been provided with relief in a similar case in the past by this bench.
Decision:
The Commission upon perusing the reply of the CPIO provided on 14.06.2022 deems it fit to verbatim quote the contents here for the sake of clarity of the factual background of the case as well as the rationale invoked by the CPIO for the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act:
"The applicant is an Income-tax Officer who was compulsorily retired by the Government under the provisions of Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The applicant had earlier filed an RTI Application dated 09.01.2020 seeking information including copies of file notes, order sheet notes, and other associated documents pertaining to the files related to his compulsory retirement u/r 56(j). The Hon'ble CIC vide order in F. No. CIC/CCITH/A/2020/677983 dated 22.03.2022, directed the CPIO to provide relevant and available information as sought by the applicant after redacting particulars related to third parties. Accordingly, vide office letter dated 25.04.2022, the relevant information as available in this office was forwarded to the applicant.
2. Subsequently, vide email dated 08.05.2022, the applicant sought certain clarifications / remaining information to be furnished in compliance to the Hon'ble CIC order mentioned above. The applicant also filed this present RTI request on the very same day. However, due to a technical issue, the contents of this RTI request were not visible on the RTI portal at that time.
3. The applicant's email request for additional information was responded to vide letter dated 17.05.2022, and under the bonafide belief that the RTI request 4 also pertained to the same additional information as sought vide email, the RTI request was also marked closed on the said date. Now, vide email dated 09.06.2022, the applicant has clarified that his present RTI application was different from his email request for additional information, and he also enclosed his present RTI application for ready reference.
4. Now therefore, this order is being passed u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005 disposing off the present RTI application made by the applicant. For ready reference, the RTI application is reproduced:
5. In order to properly dispose the RTI Application, it is relevant to provide some contextual background. The applicant was working in the Income-tax Department as an Income-tax Officer (`IT0'). On 27.12.2016, the Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI') laid a trap and caught the applicant red-handed while he was accepting illegal gratification. Accordingly, the criminal prosecution proceedings were initiated by the CBI in the designated criminal courts, and simultaneously, regular departmental proceedings were initiated by the Income-tax Department for imposition of major penalty under CCS (Conduct) Rules, and the same are currently pending.
6. Vide the above-referred RTI application, the applicant is now asking for vigilance records in his own case, which are held in the custody of the vigilance section and which were put before the committee constituted to review officers u/r 56(j). The applicant is also seeking information related to pending complaints against him.
7. As regards to the information contained in confidential records against the applicant maintained in the vigilance section [referred by the applicant in point (1) and (2) of his RTI application], it is relevant to place on record that departmental proceedings are currently pending against the applicant. Based on information available on record, it is gathered that criminal proceedings filed by the CBI against the applicant are also pending in the designated court.
8. In this regard, any information relating to the confidential vigilance record against the applicant, if divulged at this stage, would impede the process of investigation and prosecution in his case, as both criminal prosecution and Regular Departmental proceedings are pending in the case of the applicant. Hence, this information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This stand has been upheld by the Hon'ble CIC in a catena of judgments, such as:
• Sarvesh Kumar vs FCI and Ors. -- The applicant had applied for documents relating to the departmental enquiry against him in a corruption case. The Hon'ble CIC rejected the application u/s 8(h) of the RTI Act.
• Ashok Agarwal JC1T vs DoR -- The applicant asked for copies of files relating to prosecution proceedings against him. The Hon'ble CIC rejected his 5 appeal by holding that since matter is under investigation, exemption u/s 8(h) would apply.
• Ravinder Kumar vs BS Bassi,. Jt Commissioner of Police -- The applicant sought details regarding progress of investigation by police. The Hon'ble CIC dismissed the application by holding that it is not justified to disclose information in case of ongoing police investigations since such a disclosure could hamper investigation process.
9. It is also relevant to mention that the confidential record against the applicant maintained by the vigilance section was initiated by a trap which was laid upon by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the applicant. As such, the vigilance record against the applicant contains several sensitive and confidential communication received by the vigilance section from the CBI. The CBI is an organization exempt from the provisions of RTI Act u/s 24 read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act. The applicant would be unable to obtain any information under RTI from CBI relating to the investigation in his case. Therefore, any `backdoor' entry by the applicant to obtain information that the CBI possesses in his case, by attempting to obtain them through RTI applications addressed to the vigilance section of the Income-tax Department must also be prevented, in order to preserve the raison d'etre for which CBI was included in the second schedule of the RTI Act by the Parliament.
10. Vide point (3) of the RTI application, the applicant has also asked for details of pending complaints against himself which were furnished to the review committee. The reason for this information being sought by the applicant appears to be the paragraph quoted by him in the RTI application, which is an extract of the minutes of committee meeting constituted to review cases u/r 56(j). These minutes of meeting were provided to the applicant in response to the earlier RTI application filed by him.
11. In this regard, it is relevant to state that the committee reviewed cases of several officers, not just that of the applicant. The paragraph quoted by the applicant speaks about cases of all such officers reviewed u/r 56(j), not just the applicant. It is not necessary that all reviewed officers would have had complaints pending against them. Having said that, and without disclosing whether there were any complaints pending against the applicant at the time of review, the applicant's request for information on complaints pending against him (if any), is rejected for reasons outlined below.
12. Complaints against officials of the Income-tax Department are a sensitive matter since any complainant naturally feels a fear of reprisal or retribution from the official in case information is leaked that the complainant has made a complaint against the official. Therefore, all complaints are handled with 6 utmost secrecy so as to protect the identity of any person making any complaint against any official.
13. Any leaks as to the identity of complainant in even one complaint would forever deter other people from taking the courage to come out and lodge genuine complaints against officials indulging in corruption. In addition, information relating to the identity of a complainant, if fallen in the wrong hands, could also endanger the life or physical safety of the complainant. In many cases, officials being complained upon can correctly guess the identity of the complainant simply based on the nature of the information mentioned in the complaint. Sometimes, even the mere knowledge that a complaint has been lodged against an official, can cause such official to shortlist the probable identity of the complainant to a handful of people.
14. For the above-mentioned reasons, without disclosing whether there is any complaint pending against the applicant, the information sought by the applicant on pending complaints against him [referred by the applicant in point (3) of the RTI application] is rejected u/s 8(g) of RTI Act as it is information, disclosure of which would endanger the life and physical safety of other persons, and it would also identify the source of information / assistance given in confidence to law enforcement agencies. It is also relevant to add that in case such information relating to pending complaints is divulged, it would severely hamper the process of investigation of such complaints, hence its disclosure is also exempt u/s 8(h) of the RTI Act.
15. It is also important to mention that the applicant has relied upon the Hon'ble CIC judgement in his own case vide order in F. No. CIC/CCITH/A/2020/677983 dated 22.03.2022 in support of his right to obtain information sought by him in the present RTI application. However, the Hon'ble CIC had passed this judgement in a totally separate RTI application made by applicant where he sought copies of file notings, minutes of meetings etc. pertaining to his compulsory retirement u/r 56(j). It is settled position of law that compulsory retirement is merely an administrative procedure, and it is not a punishment. There is no process of investigation or trial prior to the Government deciding to compulsorily retire officials under rule 56(j). Therefore, in the original RTI application filed by the applicant, there was no cause for invoking section 8(g) and 8(h) for the information sought earlier by the applicant. His earlier RTI application was rejected by the CPIO u/s 8(j) of the RTI Act, which was over-ruled by the Hon'ble CIC.
16. Now however, the applicant is directly seeking information pertaining to ongoing investigation and prosecution in his own case. Moreover, the applicant is seeking highly confidential and sensitive information pertaining to complaints pending against him. There is clear legal ground for refusing such information u/s 7 8(g) and 8(h) of the RTI Act, and in multitude of judgements, the Hon'ble CIC has upheld the CPIOs rejection in similar cases.
17. The Hon'ble CIC judgement in the applicant's earlier case dated 22.03.2022 is clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the applicant's earlier RTI application was not covered by exemption u/s 8(g) and 8(h), whereas the information sought by the applicant in the present application is clearly exempt from disclosure u/s 8(g) and 8(h) of the RTI Act.
18. In light of the above discussion, the applicant's RTI request is rejected. In case the applicant seeks further appeal, he may file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority within 30 days, details of which are mentioned below:.."
Adverting to the above contents, it is evinced that the CPIO has adequately and extensively justified the denial of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act leaving no scope of intervention at this stage.
Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8