Central Information Commission
Ravi Sarangal vs Directorate General Of Income Tax, ... on 10 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DGITV/A/2023/140978
Ravi Sarangal .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance),
Second Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
New Delhi - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025
Date of Decision : 07.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 05.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's : 25.08.2023
order
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04.10.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"2. In this regard it is submitted that I had earlier applied for copies of the anonymous/pseudonymous complaints filed in 2011-12 while I was posted as CIT, J&K, Jammu/Bhatinda and complete back ground was also given in Page 1 of 11 my applications. I was denied information about the pseudonymous nature of complaints despite my requests since 2012. It was that section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 was applicable as disclosure of information will harm the complainant(s). I suffered for the last more than 10 years facing illegal investigations and invasion of privacy of me and my family including mother who is almost 90 years old. Not only that the said pseudonymous complaint was also made the basis for referring my case to the CBI.
4. Recently, when I approached the CIC against rejection of information RTI Act, 2005 regarding initiation of harassment process, CIC passed an Order File No.CIC/CBODT/A/2022/124190 dated 14-03-2023 (Annexure- A1), directing the CPIO of office of the ADG(Vig.) (N) New Delhi to pass proper Order on the application. The Decision of the CIT is as per para no.
20 on page 6 & 7 of the Order. The CPIO while passing Order in compliance to above order of the CIC has observed as per para (4) of her Order vide F.No. ADG(Vig.)/NZ/CPIO/RTI/2022-23/296 dated 08-05- 2023(Annexure- A2) as under :-
"Perusal of records as provided by the custodian of records reveals that pseudonymous complaint relating to disproportionate assets filed against the officer was taken cognizance by the office of the DGIT(Vig.), Delhi as the CVC had sought an action taken report on this matter. The complaint was thus acted upon by holding it at par with an owned up complaint. Enquiries were also entrusted to the CBI by the CVC as the allegation involved private persons that included close relatives of Shri Ravi Sarangal."
5. The CPIO has admitted that I have been subjected inquiries for more than 12 years only the basis of pseudonymous complaint against the DOPT OM no.104/76/ 2011-AVD-1 dated 18-10-2013 (Annexure-A3) which clearly mentions the guidelines to be adopted in cases of pseudonymous complaints as per para no. 3(iii) as under:-
"If a complaint contains verifiable allegations, the administrative Ministry/Department may take cognizance of such complaint with the approval of the competent authority to be designated by the Ministry/Department as per their distribution of work. In such cases, the complaint will be first sent to the complainant for owning/disowning, as the case may be. If no response is received from the complainant within 15 days of sending the complaint, a reminder will be sent. After waiting for 15 days after sending the reminder, if still nothing is heard, the said complaint may be filed as pseudonymous by the Ministry/Department."Page 2 of 11
A copy of the letter of rebuttal dated filed by Smt. Anita Thusu dated 05- 03-2021 is also enclosed (Annexure-A4) to bring home the point as to how patently illegal harassment process was initiated against me for the simple reason that I protested against the corrupt practices of Shri K.S. Pathania who happened to be the CCIT, Amritsar at that time. Relevant documentary evidences are already available in your office since 2012. Accordingly, information sought under RTI Act, 2005 is :-
a. Why the above guidelines were violated & I was singled out by the department for harassment? Copies of the relevant records showing the decision taken to start investigations on pseudonymous complaint without verification in my case especially despite complaint of similar nature in the name of Shri R.K.Gupta CA-cum-Director J&K Bank having been vide letters 28-05-2012 & 21-05-2012 (Annexure-A5) giving background of forging his signatures and harassment of a senior IRS officer by the unscrupulous elements.
b. Whether the CVC was ever made aware of the DoPT OM/CVC circulars on the subject of pseudonymous complaints. Please, furnish, complete name and address of the competent authority appointed as per para no. 3(iii) of OM in your office and the copy of documents regarding verification made in my case.
c. Copies of the communications received from CVC in regard with complaint on the basis of which my case was referred to the CBI by the department inspite of Instructions of the DoPT as stated above.
d. Whether the DoPT guidelines para no. 3(iii) of DOPT OM no.104/76/2011-AVD- 1 dated 18-10-2013 were followed while referring my case to the CBI, if so copies of such documents/communications be supplied.
e. It is also submitted that as the Charge Sheet issued to me on the basis of another pseudonymous complaint in the name of Smt. Anita Thusu has already been quashed and no proceedings are pending, a copy of the pseudonymous complaint on the basis of which I was issued Charge Memorandum No. C- 14011/53/2018-V&L dated 17-12-2018 be supplied to me to ensure that I get justice by proving as to how systematic process of harassment was initiated against me for taking stand against corrupt boss in 2011-12.Page 3 of 11
7. Your kind attention is invited to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman-cum-MD, Coal India Ltd. & Others Vs. Ananta Saha & Others (2011)5 SCC142, it has been held that in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. The relevant part of the judgment is re-produced as under:-
"30. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.
31. In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi- judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.
(See also State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191; and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745)."
8. Since in my case the very basis of initiation of inquiries in 2013 onwards was based upon clear bias and against the guidelines laid down by the DoPT in 2013, wider public interest of illegal harassment of public servant (who tried to stand against his corrupt boss) is involved.
9. Since the very basis of the initiation of inquires & issue of Memorandum that too on factually wrong basis as can be seen from the Inquiry Report of the IO in my case, a copy of which is already available in the office of the DGIT(Vig.), New Delhi, it is requested that the above said information may kindly be provided to me under RTI Act, 2005. It is also submitted that in view of acceptance of the fact that all the inquiries were based upon the pseudonymous complaints, there is no application of section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. I have a genuine feeling that by bringing to book those who blatantly violate the government guidelines to put harassment to officers like for such a long time of more than 12 years and destroy my career. My achievements can be seen from the facts such as handling of cases of Anti National Elements in Kashmir during my tenure as CIT and subsequently as CIT-DR when the sensitive cases of the then sitting CM of Himachal Pradesh assigned to Special Counsel were handled by me. Documentary evidences are attached as Annexure-A6 & A7. IPO no. 95G 144342 dated Page 4 of 11 30-09-2023 for Rs. 50/- is also enclosed towards fee for providing information."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 05.07.2023 stating as under:
"2. As the information requested for, pertains to other custodian of records in this office, requisition has been made for furnishing such information in terms of section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005. Based on the reply received from the custodian of records, the pointwise reply to your RTI application is as below:-
(a) With respect to copies of records sought by you, it is to inform that in this case investigation is pending with CBI, hence any disclosure may impede the process of investigation. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the desired information is also exempt from disclosure in the light of section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act which states that:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes"
In this regard, reliance is further placed on Hon'ble CIC decisions dated 20.03.2017 in Appeal No. CIC/RK/A/2016/000104-AB in this case of Shri Satya Vijay Singh- Gorakhpur Vs. CPIO, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P and dated 31.10.2008 in appeal no.CIC/AT/A/2008/00437.
Further, the part information (Why.... harassment?) sought in your RTI application is in the nature of queries, opinion etc and does not come under the definition of Information Commission in its decision No. CIC/80/A/2006/000045, dated 21.04.2006 in the case relating to Dr. D.V. Rao, Dept. of Legal Affairs Vs. CPIO, Dept. of Legal Affairs, wherein it held that 'the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which the petitioner attempts to elicit answer to his queries with prefixes pas why, what when and whether. The petitioner's right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) either by pointing the file document, paper or record etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority.
(b) Same as para (a) above.
Page 5 of 11(c) The case was referred to CBI in view of the Central vigilance Manual, Chapter-V, Para 5.1.1. The CVC manual is available in public domain.
(d) Same as para (c) above.
(e) The charge memorandum No. C-14011/53/2018-V&L dated 17.12.2018 referred by the applicant is related to separate issue and has not been issued on the basis of any pseudonymous complaint in the name of Smt. Anita Thusu. Further, it is to inform that the department proceedings initiated vide this Charge Memorandum is sub- judice before the Hon'ble High Court, Kerala."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.08.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 27.01.2025 filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JDIT (OSD), Hq. is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...2. ln this regard, it is submitted that the appellant had earlier filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2023 received in this office dated 06.06.2023 (copy enclosed) vide which certain information/documents were sought by the appellant. The CPIO disposed off the RTI application dated 05.07 .2023 (Copy enclosed).
3. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO dated 05.07.2023, the appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of this office on 24.07.2023 received in this office on27.07.2023. The FAA passed order dated 25.08.2023 (copy enclosed) stating that there was nothing in the 1st appeal that warrant any interference with the order of the CPIO and accordingly disposed off the appeal filed by the appellant. The relevant extract of the observation of the FAA is reproduced as under:-
......5.1The argument of the appellant raised above vide point 4 (a) and (b) that the crux of the information sought is whether DoPT OM No. 104/76/2011-AVD- 1 dated 18.10.2013 regarding verification was followed or not in case of Pseudonymous complaints in the case of Ravi Sarangal. Further it has been mentioned that the instant case has nothing to do with the CBI and therefore, section 8(1)(h) and 8(l)(g) are not applicable in the instant case. Here, it is important to mention that questions like why or whether are in the nature of queries, as rightly pointed out by the CPIO in his order dated 05.07.2023 and therefore, does not come under the definition of information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 6 of 11
5.2 Further, as the case is still pending with CBI, sharing of any information at this stage could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Therefore, the denial of information under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the CPIO is justified.
5.3 The contention raised above by the appellant vide point 4 (c) and (d) that he has reasons to believe that the then CVC, exceeded its powers and sent to reference to CBI in violation of the CVC Act is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant vide his RTI application has sought information related to provisions in terms, of which his case was referred to CBI, which was duly informed by the CPIO vide para no. 2(c) & (d) of his reply dated 05.07.2023.
5.4 The argument of the appellant raised above vide point 4 (e) that whether Charge Memorandum No. C-L4011/53/2018-V&L dated l7-12-2018 was based upon any pseudonymous complaint or not was already answered by the CPIO in his order wherein it was specifically mentioned that this Charge Memorandum is related to a separate issue and has not been issued on the basis of any pseudonymous complaint....."
4. lt may be noted from the reply of the CPIO that he has provided point-wise information to the appellant as sought by the appellant and has also provided reasons in detail by citing various judicial prudence of the Hon'ble CIC in support of his reply and the reply furnished by the CPIO is in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act. Further, the FAA has also justified the reasons in detail vide para 5.1 to 5.4 of her order dated 25.08.2023 that why no interference was made by the FAA.
4.1 However, the appellant is of the contention that in his case, the Charge Memorandum No. C-14011/53/2018-V& L dated 17-12-2018 was based upon pseudonymous complaint for which the appellant has already been provided reply by the CPIO as well as by the FAA that the said charge memorandum is related to a separate issue and has not been issued on the basis of any pseudonymous complaint. Further, as the case is still pending with CBI, sharing of any information /document at this stage may impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Therefore, the denial of information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act has been justified by the FAA.
5. ln view of the facts of the case, it may be concluded that submission of the appellant that all the inquiries were based upon the pseudonymous complaints and there is no application of section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is humbly requested that the appeal filed by Sh. Ravi Sarangal may kindly be dismissed on merit."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 7 of 11
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JDIT (OSD), Hq. along with Shri Vineet Sharma, ITI, O/O ADIT (V) N-1 present in person.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI application narrated the factual background of his own service as quoted in the initial phase of his application and contended that the CPIO did not inform him as to whether relevant OM of DoPT and CVC manual guidelines were followed by the respondent organization before forwarding his case to the CVC and to the CBI.
The respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been provided to the appellant. Further, he has produced an extract of para 3.8.2 of CVC Manual Vol-I in response to appellant's contention during the hearing. The same has been perused by the Commission and taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission based on perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the appellant with the reply provided by the respondent is bereft of merit as the queries raised by the appellant during the hearing are merely seeking clarifications/interpretation which do not qualify the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available Page 8 of 11 and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;Page 9 of 11
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as sequel to it further clarifications given by the CPIO vide written submission as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that two cases of the Appellant against different Public Authorities on similar issues have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that the present case listed for today's hearing also revolves around the same issue. It appears that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.Page 10 of 11
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance), Second Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi - 110003 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)