Central Information Commission
Mr.Sunil Dhir vs Ministry Of Defence on 22 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/000637
Appellant : Shri Sunil Dhir
Public Authority : Indian Army.
Date of hearing : 22.03.2012
Date of Decision : 22.03.2012
Facts :-
Heard today dated 22.03.2012. Appellant not present but is represented by Adv. S.S. Pande. The Army is represented by Col. Vijay Singh and Lt. Col. K.S. Sandhu.
2. The matter, in short, is that the appellant is a serving Colonel in the Army. A complaint appears to have been filed against him on which his comments were sought. In the RTI application dated 22.8.2011, the appellant had sought to know the action taken on his comments and had requested for copies of the file notings wherein this matter was processed. Besides, a Court of Inquiry was also instituted against the appellant. He had sought to have copies of the findings, recommendations and opinion of the CoI and the directions of the superior authorities thereon. As this information was denied to him, both by the CPIO and AA, he has filed the present appeal.
3. During the hearing, Adv. Pande submits that denial of information only on the ground that the matter is under investigation in terms of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not sustainable in law. According to him, the matter being under investigation, per se, does not bar disclosure of requested information. If the information is to be denied, it is to be established that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of investigation. He submits that according to his understanding, there is no evidence on record to show that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of investigation. He further submits that investigation in a certain sense is already over in as much as CoI has been completed and, therefore, the matter cannot be said to be under investigation in the strict legal sense.
4. On the other hand, Col. Vijay Singh submits that after the completion of CoI, Summery of Evidence was recorded whereafter General Court Martial has been ordered. The CoI, SoE and GCM are not separate processes; they are a continuum and have to be appreciated as such. He, thus, pleads that the mere fact that GCM has been ordered is ample proof to demonstrate that the matter is 'under investigation'. Col. Vijay Singh has relied on this Commission's decision dated 2.6.2011 in File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000438 (Sher Singh Rathod -Vs- Indian Army) wherein this Bench had extracted from its earlier decision in Lt. Genl. (Retd.) Awadhesh Kumar case and had held that this matter was covered under section 8(1)(h). He submits that the present case is similar to Genl. Awadhesh Kumar case and, therefore, the ratio of the cited case clearly applies in the present case.
5. However, as submitted by Adv. Pandey,the real question is whether the disclosure of requested information would impede the process of investigation. This is important as information can be denied only when it is established that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. In the premises, the Commission would like to have written submissions from the parties which may be filed in 03 weeks. There will be no further hearing and the matter will be decided on the basis of records.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( K.L. Das) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Colonel, G.S.(Education) & CPIO, Headquarters South Western Command, PIN ; 908546, C/o 56-APO.
2. Col. Sunil Dhir, B-94, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302021.