Central Information Commission
A. K. Srivastava vs Ministry Of Railways on 18 July, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MORLY/A/2017/181969
A K Srivastava ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o Railways, Director ... ितवादी/Respondent
(Vigilance) & PIO, Research
Designs & Standards Organisation,
Lucknow.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01-09-2017 FA : 26-09-2017 SA: 08-12-2017
CPIO : 13-09-2017 FAO : 13-10-2017 Hearing: 16-07-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Research Designs & Standards Organisation, Lucknow seeking following information:-
A. "Documents in respect of 1st stage advice:-
1. Complaint letter pertaining to this charge sheet.
2. Copy of all noting & comments by Vigilance officer from CVI level to SDGM (CVO)/RDSO level during investigation.
3. A copy of Sr.ED/Works noting and decision after investigation.
4. A copy of vigilance investigation report & draft charge sheet. B. Documents in respect of 2nd stage advice:-
1. A copy of noting including speaking order & provisional decision of DA (Director/SB-1), RDSO.Page 1 of 6
2. A copy of all noting & comments of various vigilance officials including from CVI to CVO level in vigilance during 2nd stage advice in this case."
2. The CPIO responded on 13-09-2017. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 26-09-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 13-10- 2017. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. A. K. Srivastava attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Manoj Minz, AVO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the sought for information as now he has been exonerated from all the charges.
5. The respondent informed the Commission that the documents sought by the appellant of 1st stage advice form part of the subject matter prior to the disciplinary proceedings. Further, they submitted that the 2nd stage advice was neither called for nor given by the concerned office. In addition, they sought exemption u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 thereby stating that the documents of the 1st stage advice cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby came within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, they referred to an earlier decision of the Commission in case no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the reliance was placed by the Commission upon the decision of Shri K. L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi in CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009. Decision:
6. This Commission observed that the disclosure of the documents of the 1st stage advice and providing the opportunity of its inspection to the appellant would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated with the completion of the said inquiry. This Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission which has been relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Page 2 of 6 Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
"6...In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."
7. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that furnishing of the documents of the 1st stage advice to the appellant and providing him an opportunity to inspect the complete vigilance file may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also to be noted that the necessary documents as required to be given under the department/vigilance rules have already been provided to the appellant. Hence, copy of the documents of the 1st stage advice cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 69. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 16-07-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/o Railways, Director (Vigilance) &
PIO, Research Designs & Standards Organisation, Manaknagar, Lucknow - 226011
2. Mr. A K Shrivastava, ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ECRHJ/A/2017/174052 Sunil Kumar v. CPIO, M/O. Railways, East Central Railway, Patna. Nature of Case:-Second Appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Date of Hearing:- 17-05-2019 Page 5 of 6 RTI dated 14-03-2017 is as follows:-
Seeking following information:-
1. Certified copy of the delivery book of the delivered parcels as mentioned in the RTI application.
2. Certified copy of the unloading book of the unloaded parcels as mentioned in the RTI application.
3. Certified copy of the Railway Receipt (RR) nos. of the delivered parcels as mentioned in the RTI application.
4. Certified copy of the newspaper delivery book of 08.05.2013 and 16.02.2014.
CPIO vide reply dated 30.05.2017 provided 14 pages of information. First Appeal dated 05.09.2017 is as follows:-
No information has been provided to him till date. First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.09.2017 upheld the CPIO reply. Second Appeal dated 27-10-2017:-
Grounds/ Prayer:-
• Sought for information should be provided to him. • Legal action should be taken against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.Page 6 of 6