Central Information Commission
Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 5 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000931/3725Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000931
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta
C/o Wg Cdr NK Mehta
H. No. SP-232/4, Subroto Park,
New Delhi-110010.
Respondent : Mr. Kanahiya Chaudhary
PIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi-110602.
RTI application filed on : 11/02/2009
PIO replied : 02/03/2009
First appeal filed on : 13/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 20/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 22/04/2009
Information sought:
The appellant had sought following information and certified copies of the documents is required in case of Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta, Principal under suspension:-
1. Was Sh. Kanihaiya Lal Chaudhry deputed on official duty to Ahemdabad Region between June 2007 to June 2008?
2. If yes, Purpose of visit.
3. If yes, the dates of visit.
4. The Xerox copy of official order or Terms of Reference issued to Sh.Kanihaiya Lal Chaudhry for duty be provided.
5. Was there any complaint in respect of Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta, Ex. Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya sector-30, Gandhinagar? If yes, provide a copy.
6. Was any visit (official) made by Sh.Kanihaiya Lal Chaudhry to Kendriya Vidyalaya sec 30 Gandhinagar during the above mentioned dates? If yes, please provide date of visit.
7. Was there any inquiry ordered for Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta, if yes, give details of the nature of such inquiry and official letter issued to Sh.Kanihaiya Lal Chaudhry in this regard?
8. Was any statement of Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta recorded by Sh.Kanihaiya Lal Chaudhry sent on official duty to Ahemadabad? If yes, supply a copy.
9. What was the findings of such inquiry? A copy of report submitted by Sh.Kanihaiya Lal Chaudhry to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan HQ Vigilance section in respect of Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta on any issue be provided.
PIO's reply:
With reference to above cited information, it is stated that since the disciplinary proceedings are in progress, therefore the information cannot be provided under the Article 8(h) if the RTI Act 2005.
The First Appellant Authority's Order:
"In the case of Smt. Anubhuti Mehta, Principal (U/S), the disciplinary authority has referred the case to the CVC for its Ist stage advice and the same is not yet received. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings against her are pending and still in progress. Hence the said information and copies of the inquiry report, special audit report and other documents can not be provided to Smt. Anubhuti Mehta at this stage under the provision of Section 8(h) of the said Act."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mrs. Anubhuti Mehta Respondent: Mr. Kanahiya Chaudhary, PIO The PIO is asked to justify the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(h). He was informed that the mere initiation or existence of enquiry does not mean that Section 8(1)(h) will apply. He should have given reasons when replying to the RTI query how Section 8(1)(h) applies, and he is now asked to explain to the Commission how disclosure of this information will impede the process of investigation or apprehension of offenders. The PIO stated "the fact finding enquiry has been setup to establish primafacie a case whether it requires disciplinary and vigilance proceeding in the matter, and which helps disciplinary authority to make his mind whether to proceed or otherwise based on report of the fact finding enquiry. Some times such enquiries held based on the records and review of available documents and it is not necessary that the party against which the enquiry is conducted is consulted. It is only when the enquiry starts the procedure for regular vigilance of disciplinary enquiry is followed. In such time the report and the information related to the enquiry can not be shared and therefore the exemption under 8(1)(h) has been resorted. This is also in accordance with CCS/CCA Rules, 1965."
The respondents were asked to submit written submissions and the order was reserved.
Decision announced on 16/06/2009:
The PIO has submitted his written submission dated 12/06/2009 in which he as argued that a report has been submitted to CVC for his first state advice. "On receipt of the advice the same will be submitted to the competent authority for taking the decision whether to take the further action or not. The matter is still under examination and has not yet reached a final stage. Mere submission of the report by the investigating officer cannot be construed as the completion of investigation. The investigation will complete only when, based upon the investigation report, a decision is made by the authority competent to take such decision regarding whether to pursue further action in the matter. He has also argued that disclosure of any investigation/enquiry report before its acceptance/rejection by a competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressures which may hamper cool reflection and compromise objectivity of decision making." He also depends on the decision of the Commission number CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 delivered on 01/06/2006.
The PIO has not given any valid reasons to justify how disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. This is a critical requirement for applicability of Section 8(1)(h). As per the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat on 3rd December 2007 "13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in their terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta 2005 (2) SCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a judicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted."
This judgment of the Hon'ble High Court has been given after the CIC order quoted by the respondent and hence I am taking cognizance of the High Court Judgment. The PIO has not been able to justify and show that disclosing the information will impede the process of investigation. Hence the Commission does not agree with his contention.
Decision dated 16/06/2009:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to give the information to the appellant before 30 June 2009.
Relevant facts arising during the hearing on 05/10/2009:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Ms. Anubhuti Mehta Respondent: Mr. Kanhaiya Choudhary, PIO The Appellant alleges that some of the information does not appear to be genuine. The Commission is not able to decide about this based on the evidence offered by the Appellant. The Appellant would like to inspect the relevant records including the Special Audit Report on 9 October 2009 at 2.30 p.m. at the Respondent's office. The PIO will provide photocopies of any of the records which the Appellant wants upto 300 pages free of cost.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 5 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) AK