Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Srivastava vs Central Vigilance Commission on 14 September, 2022
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/CVCOM/A/2020/683798
Amit Kumar Srivastava ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of Secretary,
Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkata Bhavan,
A-Block, GPO Complex,
INA, New Delhi- 110023 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Decision : 12/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 19/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/05/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 10/06/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/08/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2020 seeking information as under:
1. "Complete particulars of complaints received, in financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, by CVC, under provisions of PIDR or PIDPI, w.r.t.
corruption, financial irregularity or/and misuse/abuse of official position by the officer/s of ICAR (DARE), New Delhi- 110001
2. Certified copy of all letter/s, with enclosures, sent to CVO, ICAR (DARE), New Delhi-110001 (w.r.t. matters referred at pointno.1 of this application), in Financial year 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, by CVC, New Delhi, under provisions of PIDR or PIDPI, w.r.t. corruption, financial irregularity or/and misuse/abuse of official position by the officers of ICAR (DARE) New Delhi- 110001, for necessary action/investigation or/and investigation & report.
3. Certified copies of all communication/action taken reports/investigation reports or/and investigation & report, with enclosures, sent by CVO, ICAR (DARE), New Delhi- 110001 to CVC, New Delhi, 110023, w.r.t. matters referred at point no.1 and 2 of this application.
4. Particulars of such matters, out of matters referred at point no.1 and 2 of this application, which have been closed by the CVC, New Delhi, 110023 after receipt of communication/recommendation/action taken reports/investigation reports or/and investigation & report, from CVO, ICAR (DARE), New Delhi-110001.
5. Particulars of such matter, out of matters referred at point no.1 and 2 of this application, in which guilty officer/s of ICAR(DARE), New Delhi-110001 have been penalized by ICAR (DARE), New Delhi-110001 on the recommendation of CVC, New Delhi, 110023
6. Particulars of such matters, out of matters referred at point no.1 and 2 of this application, which are yet being examined by the CVC, New Delhi, 110023 or/and CVO, ICAR (DARE), New Delhi- 110001, in which recommendation / action taken reports/ investigation reports or/and investigation & reports, is awaited in CVC, New Delhi, 110023.
27. Particulars of such matters, out of matters referred at point no.1 and 2 of this application, which have directly been/ are yet directly being examined by the CVC instead of referring them to CVO, ICAR (DARE), New Delhi- 110001.
8. Certified copies of all quarterly reports sent by ICAR, w.r.t. financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 and received by CVC from CVO, ICAR (DARE), New Delhi- 110001. "
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 19/05/2020 stating as follows:
"you have sought information/status regarding complaint made under the provisions of Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer (PIDPI) Resolution. In this regard your attention is drawn to clause 4(ii) of the PIDPI Resolution dated 21.04.2004 {wherein it has been stated that "The identity of the complainant will not be revealed unless the complainant himself made the details of the complaint either public or disclosed his identity to any other office or authority". 'Therefore, keeping in view the above provisions of the PIDPI Resolution, any details about the complaint, copy of letter/reports and status of action taken thereupon etc. as mentioned by you in your RTI Application cannot be confirmed or denied."
Further, the denial of disclosure of information pertaining to PIDPl complaints has been upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) also. ln one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01082, has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec S(1)(g)"
and "there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to disclose this information to the Appellant". Any information regarding the PIDPI complaint cannot be disclosed to anyone, because disclosure of the same would reveal the identity of the complainant, who makes complaint under the provisions of PIDPI Resolution."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2020. FAA's order dated 10.06.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
3Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Decision:
It is brought to the attention of both the parties that a series of directions ordered by this bench with respect to records of PIDPI has been challenged by CVC before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide the following cases:
1. W.P.(C) 5105/2021 & CM APPL. 15643/2021 - CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. KRISHAN KUMAR
2. W.P.(C) 5596/2021 & CM APPL. 17444/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. MANISHA SINGH
3. W.P.(C) 5600/2021 & CM APPL. 17451/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. O. ABDUL HAMEED
4. W.P.(C) 5674/2021 & CM APPL. 17722/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. ASHWANI KUMAR Having regard to the pending adjudication of the Court, the instant matter which is premised on PIDPI records is adjourned sine die.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4