Central Information Commission
S Sankaralingam vs Department Of Posts on 16 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704
S Sankaralingam v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 23.12.2016, CPIO reply -19.01.2017, FAO on 02.03.2017, Second appeal
filed on 09.05.2017, Hearing on 13.02.2018;
Proceedings on 13.02.2018: Appellant present; Public Authority represented by CPIO Mr. V.
Ramasamy; Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 15.03.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO Mr. V.
Ramasamy from NIC Madurai;
Date of Decision - 16.04.2018: Penalty imposed.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant through online RTI request dated 23.12.2016 sought for information on 5 Kisan Vikas Patra purchased by his mother during the period between 1988 to 1994. Specifically he sought for certificate numbers, date of maturity, mode of payment and the person to whom paid along with date of payment. The CPIO on 19.01.2017 intimated the appellant that as reported by Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO that the CBI has filed a case no. RC 29(A)/2011 against the applicant regarding alleging disproportionate assets amassed by the applicant. Hence the information sought was denied under section 8(1)(h) and the same was upheld by the FAA. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 16.02.2018:
2. The appellant was not satisfied by the response given by the CPIO. In this regard he relied on certain judgment/orders of the High Court of Delhi and the Commission, which categorically states as under:
"1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C)/3114/2007 in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commission and others held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information: the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reason 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. In my case CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 1 you have only shown that investigation is pending and there is no material with you to show that the disclosure of the information would hamper the investigation process. Accordingly, the above decision is clearly applicable to the facts of my case.
2. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri Sathya Narayanan vs Reserve Bank of India dated 24.08.2011 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001239/SG/14214 held that unless the CPIO establishes that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation, the information cannot be refused. It was also held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information.
3. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri P. Sivakumar vs Syndicate Bank dated 09.03.2012 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001664/SG/15147 held that if the intention of the legislature was to deny the information where the investigation is pending, the words "which would impede the process" would become redundant.
3. The officer stated that information on few points are not available.The respondent authority failed to appreciate the fact that the information sought pertains to the KVP purchased by the appellant's mother and denying information to her legal heir by quoting section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which is absolutely illogical and illegal. The CPIO also failed to show how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Subsequently, the officer has made self-contradictory statements, viz., i) by quoting section 8(1)(h) of the Act; ii) stated that the Central Bureau of Investigation objected from disclosing and iii) information is not available.
4. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide complete information in the form of certified copies, within 5 days from the date of receipt of this Order and also directs Mr. V. Ramasamy, CPIO to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed against him for illegally denying the information, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. The case is posted on 15.03.2018 for compliance and penalty proceedings.
Decision :
3. Shri V. Ramasamy in his written submission dated 01.03.2018, submitted as under:
"In the show cause notice dated 16.02.18, CIC has ordered that:
1. The information sought pertains to the KVP purchased by the Appellant's mother and denying information to her legal heir by quoting section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005, which is absolutely illogical and illegal.
2. The CPIO also failed to show how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation.
3. The officer has made self-contradictory statements vizi. by quoting section 8(1)(h) of the act, ii. Stating that the Central Bureau of Investigation objected from disclosing iii. Information is not available.
4. It was directed to provide the complete information in the form of certified copies within 5 days.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 2
1. With regard to the observation (1) of the Show cause notice, It is submitted that it was furnished in the Reply statement dated 9.2.18, which was uploaded in the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add, that the Appellant is not the investor of the said KVP certificates for which he sought for information. As per section 8(1)€ of RTI Act, 2005, the information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship could not be disclosed unless the competent authority is satisfied at the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. It is further submitted, no proof has been supplied by the Appellant, in support of his claim. It is submitted that the case is dealt as per the provision of RTI Act and reply was given quoting the relevant section of RTI Act. The act of CPIO is within the ambit of Rules and there is no wilful denial of information by the CPIO.
Therefore it is submitted that there is no illogical and illegal action on the part of CPIO.
2. With regard to observation (2) of the Show cause notice, It is submitted that in the absence of specific guidelines in RTI Act, CIC Judgements are being referred to. The information could not be furnished as the information requested by the Appellant attracts section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
The First Appellate Authority has disposed of the First Appeal made by the Appellant, as the decision of the CPIO/SSP, Kovilpatti was upheld as proper. The Appellant in the First Appeal, has quoted the CIC decision related to the cases of pending investigation only, that too related to the period 2011 and 2012. The First Appellate Authority while disposing the First Appeal has quoted the CIC decision dt 22.01.16 in which it was ordered that "No investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken in the case of SmtHarjot Kaur Vs Department of Posts vide CIC NO CIC/BS/A/2015/000019+000020+000024/3573 dated 22.01.2016. The First Appellate Authority has also mentioned that the information requested attracts section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005. Hence the Decision of the CPIO/SSPOs, Kovilpatti Division was upheld as proper.
Had the First Appellate Authority ordered that the decision of the CPIO was not in order with the direction to CPIO to supply the information, the CPIO would have carried out the orders of FAA and supplied the available information. Therefore it is submitted that there is no willful denial of information in this case by the CPIO.
The Appellant has made a second appeal dated 05.05.17 to the Central Information Commission. In the second appeal made by the Appellant only, the Appellant has intimated that the investigation in r/o case No RC 29(A)/2011 is already completed and the charge sheet is filed with CBI Court, Madurai in CC No. 1/2015 and the matter is sub-judice.
Hence the Supdt of Police, CBI(ACB), Chennai-600034 has been addressed vide this office letter no. IR/RTI/111/16-17/SS dated 19.05.17, that "the above Appellant in his second RTI appeal has mentioned that, investigation in RC 29(A)/2011 is already completed and the charge sheet is filed with CBI Court, Madurai in CC No. 1/2015 and requested to intimate the present position of the case within 7 days, in order to give reply to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi as to how the information requested by the appellant under RTI Act would impede the process of investigation". The Supdt of Police, CBI was reminded on 9.6.17.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 3 It has been intimated by the Supdt of Police, CBI, Anti corruption Branch, Chennai vide letter No C8/RC 29/ 11/ CBI, ACB,Chen/156/ 2942 dated 08.06.17 that the case No RC 29/4/11, CBI ACB, Chennai is pending before the Hon'ble Spl Judge, Madurai and is in precharge stage and case is posted to 15.6.17.
3. With regard to observation 3(i) that the officer has made self-contradictory statements, by quoting section 8(1)(h) of the Act, It is submitted that the reason for quoting such section has been discussed in pre paras. The pending investigation is a subject matter of CBI an it was replied as per the provisions contained in section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
With regard to observation 3(ii) that the officer has made self-contradictory statements, by stating that the Central Bureau of Investigation objected from disclosing.
It is submitted that in the reply statement uploaded, it has been intimated about the nature of action taken at our end, viz it has been intimated by the Supdt of Police, CBI, Anti corruption Branch, vide letter No C8/RC 29/ 11/ CBI, ACB,Chen/156/ 2942 dated 08.06.17 that the case No RC 29/4/11, CBI ACB, Chennai is pending before the Hon'ble Spl Judge, Madurai and is in precharge stage and case is posted to 15.6.17.Further on receipt of notice of hearing in second appeal, the investigating authority has been requested to inform the present status of the case and also to intimate as to how providing of information would impede the investigation. The CBI Authorities informed over phone that the case has been referred for legal opinion. It is further submitted that the facts and progress of the case has been mentioned. In fact it was told that the CBI informed vide their email dated 12.02.18 that they have no objection to furnish information. Accordingly the available information has been furnished on 14.02.18.
With regard to observation 3(iii) that the officer has made self-contradictory statements, by stating that the information is not available. It is submitted that while giving reply to the Appellant, by the First Appellate Authority, it has been quoted that in point No (1) as under: The CPIO/SSPOs Kovilpatti Division has reported that the No KVP certificates were issued to the investor on that date 07.05.1988 as per the records available at their end and the information for other period were available except mode of payment details.
In the Reply statement dated 9.2.18, uploaded in the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, it was submitted that information available with CPIO will be provided if Hon'ble CIC desires to provide the information.
During the hearing held on 13.02.18 at Madurai I assured the Hon'ble CIC that available information would be supplied.
Except the information for the date 07.05.88 and the mode of payment details, all other information were supplied to the Appellant immediately on 14.02.18. It is further submitted that the original discharged KVPs were sent to O/o General Manager, Postal Accounts & Finance, Chennai-600008 for safe custody and custodian of documents has been requested to supply the information regarding mode of payment to Appellant directly vide this office letter No. IR/RTI/111/16-17/SS dated 14.02.18.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 4 The First Appellate Authority has disposed of the First Appeal made by the Appellant, as the decision of the CPIO/SSP, Kovilpatti was upheld as proper. However on receipt of second appeal the CPIO had taken sincere efforts to provide the information subsequently. As the case is linked with CBI and the CBI informed only on 12.02.18 at 1545 hours that they have no objection to furnish the information and the information was supplied to the Appellant on 14.02.18.
I further submit that, there is no wilful denial on my part and I regret for the inconvenience caused in this regard.
I request the Hon'ble Commission to consider the circumstances of the case and the efforts taken by CPIO to provide the information and to drop the proposal of penalty proceedings".
Brief History - Case of RTI Second Appeal of Sri S. Sankaralingam, Appellant Vs CPIO, Department of Posts, filed on 9.5.17, Hearing on 13.02.18
1. That Shri S. Sankaralingam requested for information under RTI Act through online request dated 23.12.16 by stating that his mother Smt. S.Muppidathiammal, W/o S. Sankaranarayanamudaliar, 7, Vadakasiammankovilfirst street, Sankarankovil invested in KisanVikasPatras as per the details shown below.
1 Sankarankovil HPO 627756 07.05.1988 20000 07.12.1988 25000 18.05.1992 15000 23.04.1994 40000 2 Sankarankovil Bazar PO 627756 25.08.1988 15000 and to furnish the following information regarding certificate numbers, date of maturity, mode of payment, and the person to whom paid and date of payment. The Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO custodian of documents and the Sub Postmaster, Sankarankovil Bazaar were addressed through email on 04.01.17, to furnish the required information, to the CPIO.
The Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO and the Sub Postmaster, Sankarankovil Bazaar SO in their replied dated 06.01.17 and 07.01.17, addressed to the CPIO, furnished the information available at their end. The Postmaster, Sankarankovil Head Post Office has also reported that the information regarding the same KVP certificates sought by the said Sri Sankaralingam was asked by Sri S. Jaikumar, Addl SP, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai - 6, vide letter dated 28.10.13, regarding case No RC 29 (A) 2011 against the said Shri S.Sankaralingam, alleged disproportionate assets amassed by him. Therefore the said information has been supplied to CBI by Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO, vide letter dt 13.11.13.
Further it is submitted that the details of other 18 KVPs in the name of Smt. S.Muppidathiammal were already asked by Shri Roy Alexander, Addl SP, CBI, ACB, Chennai vide letter No. RC-29(A)/2011-ACB/Chennai/9379 dated 29.01.2012 a/t Senior Accounts Officer (Cash Certificate Section), O/o General Manager, Postal Accounts & Finance, TN Circle, No.5, EthirajSalai, Chennai and copy to Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO and the required information was already submitted to CBI by Postmaster, Sankarankovil in person on 08.11.2012.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 5 The information regarding the said KVPs, collected by the CBI regarding case No RC 29 (A) 2011 against the said Shri S.Sankaralingam, is requested by the RTI Appellant now. Hence the Appellant was given a reply for RTI Representation dt 23.12.16, the information requested by the appellant could not be furnished as per the provisions of section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. The reply was furnished to the said Sri S.Sankaralingam, vide letter No. IR/RTI/111/16-17/SS dated 19.01.17 through online in pdf format on 19.01.17 and through Registered letter No. RT766300614IN on 20.01.17 as mentioned above.
The appellant had submitted one representation dated 25.01.17 a/t Supdt of Police, CBI (ACB), Chennai and copy to SSPOs (CPIO), Kovilpatti. In the above representation, he requested the Supdt of Police, CBI (ACB), Chennai that the necessary details regarding encashment of KVPs may be obtained by the I.O from the Postmaster, Sankarankovil immediately before they are weeded out or inform the SSPOs, Kovilpatti that furnishing the above information to him under RTI Act would not impede the process of investigation or prosecution. No instruction has been received from the CBI Authorities till 12.02.18.
The Appellant has preferred an appeal to the First Appellate Authority dt 2.2.17 in which the Appellant has put forth the following points for consideration.
1. The CPIO merely repeated the comments received from Postmaster, Sankarankovil Head Office, without applying his independent mind as a judicial authority.
2. Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable as the CPIO has not recorded any finding that furnishing the information requested would impede the process of investigation.
3. The CPIO has information that only investigation is pending and there is no material available with him to show that furnishing of information would impede the process of investigation.
4. If the mere pendency of investigation is a bar to furnish the information, then the words "impede the process" would become redundant and therefore the CPIO should indicate how furnishing the information would impede the process of investigation.
5. The Hon'ble Delhi High WP(C)/3114/2007 in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner and others held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information and the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reason as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.
6. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri Sathya Narayanan vs Reserve Bank of India dated 24.08.2011 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001239/SG/14214 held that unless the CPIO established that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation, the information cannot be refused. It was also held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of information.
7. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri P. Sivakumar vs Syndicate Bank dated 09.03.2012 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001664/SG/15147 held that if the intention of the legislature was to deny the information where the investigation is pending, the words "which would impede the process" would become redundant.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 6
8. The appellant prayed the FAA, to direct the PIO to provide certified copies of complete and correct information within 10 days from the decision of the first appellate authority on appeal.
9. The appellant has also stated in the Appeal, that incase the first appellate authority found merits in this appeal and decided to direct the CPIO to furnish the information, the personal hearing may be waived. However, if the first appellate authority intends to confirm the order of CPIO, personal opportunity may be given to the applicant to substantiate the above written submissions.
12.The appeal has been disposed of by the FAA, vide letter no. O&M/25- 3/17/2017 dated 02.03.17, as under.
Point No 1. The appellant is appealing that the CPIO has just repeated the comments received from the Postmaster, Sankarankovil without applying his independent mind as a judicial authority and the CPIO should indicated how furnishing the information would impede the process of investigation and requested to direct the CPIO to provide certified copies of complete and correct information and requested the appellate authority intends to confirm the order of CPIO, opportunity for personal hearing may be given to the appellant to substantiate the written versions in the appeal. The CPIO/SSPOs Kovilpatti Division has reported that the No KVP certificates were issued to the investor on that date 07.05.1988 as per the records available at their end at present and the information for other period were available except mode of payment details. It is said by the CPIO that the case No. RC 29(A)/2011 was filed by CBI against the appellant regarding alleging disproportionate assets amassed by the appellant and the information requested by the appellant was already asked by the Shri S.Jaikumar, Addl SP, CBI, ACB, Chennai vide letter dated 28.10.13 a/t Head Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO-627756 and reply for the same was already submitted to CBI by Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO vide letter dated 13.11.13.
Point No 2. It is also submitted that the details of other 18 other KVPs in the name of Smt. S. Muppidathiammal was already asked by Shri Roy Alexander, Addl SP, CBI, ACB, Chennai vide letter No. RC-29(A)/2011- ACB/Chennai/9379 dated 29.10.2012 a/t Senior Accounts Officer (Cash Certificate Section), O/o General Manager, Postal Accounts & Finance, TN Circle, No.5, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai and copy to Postmaster, Sankarankovil HO and the required information was already submitted to CBI by Postmaster, Sankarankovil in person on 08.11.2012.
Point No 3. Further said by the CPIO that the appellant has submitted one representation dated 25.01.17 a/t Supdt of Police, CBI (ACB), Chennai and copy to SSPOs (CPIO), Kovilpatti and he has requested the Supdt of Police, CBI (ACB), Chennai that the necessary details regarding encashment of KVPs may be obtained by the I.O from the Postmaster, Sankarankovil immediately before they are weeded out or inform the SSPOs, Kovilpatti that furnishing the above information to him under RTI Act would not impede the process of investigation or prosecution. As no reply has been received from CBI regarding the case against the appellant, the CPIO said CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 7 that the information sought for was not furnished as per the provisions contained in section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point No 4. As per section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005, the departmental enquiry which was in progress was a pending investigation under law and there is no question of disclosing any information relating to prosecution which would impede the process of investigation. No investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. The same was held by the CIC in the earlier case of Smt. Harjot Kaur Vs Department of Posts vide CIC No. CIC/BS/A/2015/000019+000020+000024/9573 dated 22.01.2016. The information requested attracts section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence the Decision of the CPIO/SSPOs Kovilpatti Division is upheld as proper.
The Appellant has preferred a second appeal dated 05.05.17 to Central Information Commission with copy to the CPIO and the FAA, in which the Appellant has mentioned the following points as Grounds for second appeal:
1. Even though it was submitted to the first appellate authority that in case the issue was to be decided against the applicant, personal opportunity should be given, the same was not granted by the first appellate authority and it was decided suo moto without even confirming the stage of investigation.
2. Both the learned CPIO & FAA failed to understand the difference between a case where "investigation is pending" and a case where the disclosure of information would "impede the process of investigation". Mere pendency of investigation would not mean that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Neither the CPIO nor the FAA has recorded any finding that the disclosure of information sought would impede the process of investigation. They further failed to notice that the investigation had already been completed and charge sheet was filed in the year 2015 itself.
3. Even otherwise as per the grounds no. 4,5,6,7 raised before the first appellate authority, non furnishing of the requested information is against the provisions of the Right to Information Act. But the first appellate authority has not dealt with the decisions raised in the above grounds and did not record a finding as to how the same were not applicable to the case of the applicant.
4. The decision and arguments relied on in the rectification petition dated 25.01.2017 may be taken as the grounds raised in this second appeal.
It is prayed by the appellant that the CPIO may be directed to furnish the information sought by the applicant under Right to Information Act.
The investigation mentioned by the CPIO in RC 29(A)/2011 is already completed and the charge sheet is filed with CBI court, Madurai in CC No.1/2015. Since the investigation is already completed and the matter is CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 8 sub-judice, the applicant has to reply on the information sought for in the court. Further as submitted before the first appellate authority, there is no material with the CPIO that furnishing of the requested information "would impede the process of investigation". In fact neither the CPIO nor the first appellate authority did enquire about the stage of the case whether it was under investigation or already investigation completed and the charge sheet filed. They did not record any finding that furnishing the requested information would impede the process of investigation, but wrongly assumed that mere pendency of investigation was sufficient to reject the request of the applicant.
With respect to the points in the second appeal of the appellant, it is submitted that • The appellant has submitted one representation dated 25.01.17 a/t Supdt of Police, CBI(ACB), Chennai and copy to SSPOs(CPIO), Kovilpatti requesting that the necessary details regarding encashment of KVPs may be obtained by the I.O from the Postmaster, Sankarankovil immediately before they are weeded out or inform the SSPOs, Kovilpatti that furnishing the above information to him under RTI Act would not impede the process of investigation or prosecution. But no reply 'has been received from CBI Authorities regarding the above said case, till 12.2.18.
• Further the Appellant is not the investor of the KVPs for which information is requested by the Appellant. As per section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005, the information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship could not be disclosed, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. In the instant case, no public interest is involved and the Appellant is requesting for information invested by Sri Muppidathiammal, purely for the personal reasons. The Appellant did not submit any proof, in support of his claim.
• The first appeal has been disposed of by the First Appellate Authority, as the Decision of CPIO/SSP, Kovilpatti Division was upheld as proper.
• In the second appeal dated 05.05.17 made by the Appellant only, it is intimated by the Appellant, that the investigation mentioned by the CPIO in RC 29(A)/2011 is already completed an the charge sheet is filed with CBI Court, Madurai in CC No. 1/2015 and the matter is sub-judice.
• Hence the Supdt of Police, CBI(ACB), Chennai-600034 has been addressed vide this office letter no. IR?RTI/111/16-17/SS dated 19.05.17, that the above Appellant in his second appeal has mentioned that, investigation in RC 29(A)/2011 is already completed and the charge sheet is filed with CBI Court, Madurai in CC NO. 1/2015 and requested to intimate the present position of the case within 7 days, in order to give reply to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi as to how the information requested by the appellant under RTI Act would impede the process of investigation, New Delhi. The Supdt of Police, CBI was reminded on 9.6.17.
It has been intimated by the Supdt of Police, CBI, Anti corruption Branch, vide letter No C8/RC 29/11/CBI,ACB,Chen/156/2942 dated 08.06.17 that the case No RC 29/4/11, CBI, ACB, Chennai is pending CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 9 before the Hon'ble Spl Judge, Madurai and is in precharge stage and case is posted to 15.6.17.
Hence the Supdt of Police, CBI(ACB), Chennai was addressed again on 03.02.18, by intimating that the notice of hearing dated 29.01.18 has been received from Central Information Commission, New Delhi that second appeal filed by the appellant has been summoned for hearing on 13.02.18. And it was requested to intimate whether the information could be provided to the Appellant or otherwise if there is any object, to intimate as to how the supply of information would impede the investigation.
In response to the above letter, the CBI Authorities informed overphone that the case has been referred for seeking legal opinion. It has been intimated by Superintendent of Police, CBI through email on 12.2.18 at 1545 hours that charge sheet has been filed, the branch has 'no objection' in providing the information sought for by the Appellant and may be dealt with according to law.
The CPIO attended the hearing held on 13.2.18 and it was brought to the notice of Hon'ble CIC that the CBI has intimated that there is no objection in providing the information sought for by the Appellant and may be dealt with according to the law and assured to provide available information to the Appellant. The information for the dated 7.5.88 and mode of payment were not available with the CPIO. The custodian of documents, i.e. General Manager, O/o Postal Accounts and Finance, Chennai-8 has been addressed for supply of information as per the orders of Hon'ble CIC, vide this office letter No IR/RTI/111/16-17/SS dated 14.02.18. All other information were provided to the Appellant immediately, vide this office letter No IR/RTI/111/16-17/SS dated 14.02.18."
4. The appellant is son of the person whose investment in 5 KVP's is being sought. When son, who is a legitimate heir is asking for information it cannot be rejected as 'personal information' of 'third party'. First ground of section 8(1)(j) fails here. Second ground is that investment details of appellant's mother is held by public authority in fiduciary capacity; hence cannot be given. As a heir, appellant is entitled to succeed the property of his mother, the information about investment is his mother's information. That information is generated by his mother. Information/benefits are supposed to be rendered to genuine beneficiary. That is the job of trustee. The post office is a trustee here. Its job is to see that the interest of investor or her son or heir has to be protected. Disclosure of information about the investment by mother to her son is nor breach of fiduciary duty but performance of fiduciary duty. The CPIO should have used the common CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 10 sense instead of uncommon invocation of non-applicable exemption clause. Without application of mind the CPIO's ground under section 8(1)(e) also fails.
5. Third ground is that disclosure would 'impede' the process of investigation under 8(1)(h). The case law discussed by this CPIO foes against him because he failed to show how disclosure about 5 KVPs would impede the investigation against the appellant. This fact was confirmed by confirmation of CBI's no objection. Again it's a matter of common sense and general understanding, that an investigation into allegation of amassing disproportionate assets cannot be impeded by disclosure of 5 KVP certificates of accused's mother. The total investment by mother through 5 KVPs comes to Rs. 1.15 lakh. Whether appellant inherited this entire amount, that adds to his assets and whether its proportion is affected by this addition are the subject matter of investigation and adjudication. The fact of 5 KVPs and amount invested in it is borne by documentary evidence, which remain same whether disclosed or not. The CPIO should have examined such simple factor by mere application of mind. It is clear that the disclosure of information about 5 KVP certificates of his mother will never impede the investigation or prosecution. Hence, the ground of section 8(1)(h) also fails.
6. By all means, the information sought should have been disclosed to the appellant within first 30 days from the date of receipt of RTI request. Hence, the Commission holds Shri V. Ramasamy, CPIO liable under section 20 of RTI Act and imposes maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- against him. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the salary payable to, Shri V. Ramasamy, CPIO by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 19.06.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 19.10.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131704 Page 11