Central Information Commission
Satish Chandra Omar vs Central Vigilance Commission on 19 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2024/641375
Satish Chandra Omar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.05.2024 FA : 10.06.2024 SA : 16.09.2024
CPIO : 30.05.2024 FAO : 05.07.2024 Hearing : 28.08.2025
Date of Decision: 18.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. RTI Applicant has superannuated from Military Engineer Service (MES) under ministry of Defence in Feb 2024.
2. Prior to his superannuation, RTI Applicant was issued a Charge Memo vide Govt. of India Ministry of Defence OM No. 13011/16/2021-D (Vig- MES & BRO) dt 01 Feb 2024 based on CVC advice in the ibid case vide CVC OM No. 2024/ DEF/ MES/VOG CASE/ 1/ 16977 dt 23.01.2024 (Copy not provided along with Charge Memo).
INFORMATION SOUGHT UNDER RTI ACT 2005 Page 1 of 6
3. It is requested to provide copy of following documents in above mentioned case under the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
(a) Copy of CVC OM No. CVC OM No. 2024/ DEF/ MES/VOG CASE/ 1/ 16977 dt 23.01.2024.
(b) Copy of correspondence exchanged between CVC and CVO (MES & BRO), MoD and in the ibid case between 01 Oct 2021 to 30 Apr 2024.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The case in which information is sought has not reached its logical conclusion, as per record. Therefore, the information sought is denied under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, which states "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.07.2024 observed as under: -
"I have gone through the relevant records and find that the Appellant in his RTI Application had sought copy of CVC OM No. 2024/DEF/MES/VIG-CASE/1 dated 23.01.2024 and copy of correspondence exchanged between CVC and CVO, (MES & BRO), MoD, pertaining to a disciplinary case and as per the information available, the case has not reached its logical conclusion. In such cases, the disclosure of information is exempt under Section 8(1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act, as upheld by CIC in the case of Shri Shankar Sharma and other Vs Income Tax Department in case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007/10/11, in which CIC stated that "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 such cases, where the investigation is not Page 2 of 6 complete, that is, the cases have not been taken to their logical conclusion, the disclosure of information/documents is exempt from disclosure, as upheld by the CIC in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01500 in the case of Shri N. Saini vs. LIC of India in which CIC stated that "there is also public interest in keeping the proceedings of an enquiry against the public servant confidential as any premature disclosure of the contents of such enquiry can compromise its objectivity as well as integrity. In fact, confidentiality is a key element of the enquiry." Hence, the Appellant's request is not acceptable.
The issues raised by the Appellant in his online Appeal No. CVCOM/A/E/24/00095 10.06.2024, have thus been addressed, appropriately."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.09.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Swati Ratna, Director, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant reiterated the background of the RTI application and inter-alia submitted that he had sought copy of CVC, OM dated 23.01.2024 regarding disciplinary proceedings related to him and copy of correspondence between CVC and CVO but the same was denied claiming exemption u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He stated that he wanted to know the outcome of the representations filed to the CVC against the Disciplinary Proceedings. In the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of Sarla Gupta vs Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. Appeal no. 1622/2022 dated 07.05.2025 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgments in case of Bhagat Singh VS CIC, dated 03.12.2007, the appellant stated that an accused has a right to seek information related to his case for a proper and just trial. And the respondent cannot with hold the information because of pendency of the inquiry.
7. When queried by the Commission regarding present status of the case, the respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings has not concluded yet as the inquiry in the matter is still pending, thus, the above mentioned exemption had been Page 3 of 6 claimed. Moreover, disclosing the information would hamper the investigation. However, sought information may be provided after completion of the pending inquiry. Moreover, copy of CVC first stage advice as sought on point no. 1, had already provided to the appellant along with the chargesheet issued to him. In response, the appellant contested that the copy of advice was not provided with the chargsheet. A written submission dated 27.08.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
"2. Sh. Satish Chandra Omar, the RTI Appellant/Applicant, vide his online RTI Application No. CVCOM/R/E/24/00356 dated 21.05.2024 sought information as-
(a) Copy of CVC OM No. 2024/DEF/MES/VIG_CASE/1/16977 dated 23.01.2024
(b) Copy of correspondence exchanged between CVC and CVO (MES & BRO), MoD and in the ibid case between 01 Oct. 2021 to 30 April 2024.
3. Vide letter No. CVCOM/R/E/24/00356-29000 dated 30.05.2024, the CPIO/CVC replied to the RTI Application as-
"The case in which information is sought has not reached its logical conclusion, as per record. Therefore, the information sought is denied under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, which states "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"
4. Thereafter, dissatisfied with the aforesaid reply of CPIO, the RTI Applicant preferred an online 1 appeal registration no. CVCOM/A/E/24/00095 dated 10.06.2024 on stated ground of 'Refused access to Information Requested".
5. The 1" Appeal no. CVCOM/A/E/24/00095 dated 10.06.2024 was duly considered by the First Appellate Authority (FAA)/CVC and disposed of vide Order No. CVC/RTI/APP/24/77-33255 dated 05.07.2024, stating as-
"I have gone through the relevant records and find that the appellant in his RTI application has sought copy of CVC OM No. 2024/DEF/MES/VIG_CASE/1 dated 23.01.2024 and copy of correspondence exchanged between CVC and CVO, (MES Page 4 of 6 & BRO), MoD, pertaining to a disciplinary case and as per the information available, the case has not reached its logical conclusion. In such cases, the disclosure of information is exempt under Section 8(1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act, as upheld by CIC in the case of Sh. Shankar Sharma and other Vs Income Tax Department in case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00007/10/11, in which CIC stated that "investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudication 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 such cases, where the investigation is not complete, that is, the cases have not been taken to their logical conclusion, the disclosure on information/documents is exempt from disclosure, as upheld by the CIC in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01500 in the case of Sh. N. Saini Vs. LIC of India in which CIC stated that "there is also public interest in keeping the proceedings of an enquiry against the public servant confidential as any premature disclosure of the contents of such enquiry can compromise its objectivity as well integrity. In fact, confidentiality is a key element of the enquiry." Hence, the appellant's request is not acceptable."
6. Now, the Appellant has filed 2nd Appeal before the CIC, challenging the aforesaid decision of FAA/CVC.
7. It is reiterated that in the related case on which the information has been sought, inquiry is undergoing and as such, the case has not reached its logical conclusion. Therefore, the information cannot be disclosed to the RTI Applicant."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply furnished by the CPIO on point no. (b) is appropriate. The Commission notes that information sought on point no.
(b) contain sensitive information of the departments related to the case and disclosure of the same would impede the process of the investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Hence, exemption of section 8 (1) (h) claimed by the CPIO on point no. (b) is correct. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in case of Sarla Gupta vs Page 5 of 6 Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. Appeal no. 1622/2022 dated 07.05.2025, relied upon by the appellant is not relevant to mandate to the RTI Act as it pertains to the provision of 420 of IPC, 1860. Moreover, copy of CVC OM dt 23.01.2024 as sought on point no. 1 had also been furnished to the appellant during issuance of the chargesheet, thus, the same cannot be denied. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish copy of CVC OM dt 23.01.2024 to the appellant within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 18.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Central Vigilance Commission, Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110023 2 Satish Chandra Omar Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)