Central Information Commission
Dr. Sreeramappa vs Central Vigilance Commission on 24 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/143574
Dr Sreeramappa ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.02.2023 FA : 18.07.2023 SA : 27.10.2023
CPIO : 10.03.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 15.01.2025
Date of Decision: 24.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2023 seeking the following information regarding 133 complaints filed by him:
A. "With reference to the above grievances lodged at CVC. kindly provide the records of correspondence, communication, pointwise wise NPCIL/DAE response, noting sheet, investigation reports and action taken as per investigation report (total file required) etc. B. Requesting provide records and information related to the accountabilities of corrupt practice, delay decision making and not taking merit of decision by concerned officials.
C. Requesting provide records and information Each grievances substantiate or disapproved Page 1 of 9 D. Requesting provide records and information Each grievance covered under vigilance angle W.r.t the CVC Office Order No.74/12/05 and Office Order No. 23/04/04."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"As per information/input provided by CPIOs, concerned of the commission the following information as under:-
S.No Complaint No. Action taken in Commission
1 7398/2023 Complaint was electronically sent to CVO, NCSC for
necessary action on 28.02.2023
2 7397/2023 Filed
3 7396/2023 Filed
4 7395/2023 Filed
5 7392/2023 Complaint was electronically sent to CVO, cabinet
secretariat for necessary action on 22.02.2023...etc. A. C & D: It may be noted that the complaints which are sent for necessary action to the department concerned, the Commission does not expect a report from them and it is for the department concerned to take further action on the complaint as they deemed appropriate.
The file notings at CVC amount to information held by Public Authority and 'thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence the same is exempted for disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. The same is in line with the CIC decision No.CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017.Page 2 of 9
B: The Information sought is vague or not available."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.10.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Madhu Sharma, Director & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Commission took on record the written submissions of the Appellant filed on 27.12.2024; 02.01.2025.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and in further compliance with the FAA's order, the RTI Application was also transferred to the CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy on 15.05.2023 for necessary action as most of his complaints referred to the in the RTI Application were forwarded to the DAE and in relation to the same grievance he had complained against entities like the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, therefore the complaint related to these organizations were forwarded accordingly.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant vide his written submissions has stated at length contentions that appear to be an extrapolation of one of his earlier decided cases against Department of Atomic Energy vide Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2023/130368. It is not comprehensible as to what relief is being desired in the instant matter against CVC as the Appellant has harped at length on the alleged non-compliance of the Commission's directions contained in Second Appeal No. CIC/DOATE/A/2023/130368 and that he has filed a contempt case for the same and has also filed complaints before various platforms against Department of Atomic Energy. Although it is mentioned that the submissions being made by him in the context of the earlier order against DAE is an additional/supporting argument for the instant case, the Page 3 of 9 fact that the Appellant has extended the present RTI queries by framing fresh queries and demand for information at the hearing stage renders his request non-maintainable. For emphasis some of the contents of his written submissions are reproduced hereunder:
"3. The Hon'ble Central Information Commission has previously rendered a verdict on the aforementioned matter (CIC order No.CIC/DOATE/A/2023/130368), with a decision date of 02/09/2024, but disobeyed the CIC order.
4. I have filed complaints with the Cabinet Secretary Department CVC, CBI, DAE, NPCIL, CBI, NCSC, NHRC, NCPCR NMC, parliamentary committee on SC/ST, PMO, President secretariat, ministry of social justice, police, and others regarding public interest in related irregularities, malpractices, corruptions, vigilance angle, procedural lapse, conflict of interest accountability, and failure to follow transparency procedure under RTI. Aforementioned matter has already been decided by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission "The CIC order No.CIC/DOATE/A/2023/130368, dated 02/09/2024"
5. In addition to empowering citizens, the RTI Act seeks to curb corruption and advance accountability and openness in government. It also requires that demands for information from the government be answered promptly. The CVC monitor has a responsibility, but it is not fulfilled, and the same documents are needed.
xxx I. Regarding the previously described issues, the following records and information are needed.
1. Copies of every complaint, file note, document, and material evidence (if any) filed by Dr. SREERAMAPPA, a former NPCIL/DAE employee, against the police department, Parliamentary committee of SC/ST, PM, CBI, CVC, NCSC, NMC, NHRC, IB, police department, MSJ&E, police, and other NPCIL/DAE departments and individuals, as well as the CVC responses to the complainant at various points between 2011 and the present.
2. Copies of all correspondence and documents sent by CVC to the NPCIL CVO, DAE, PM, CBI, CVC, NCSC, NMC, NHRC, IB, police department, Parliamentary Page 4 of 9 committee on SC/ST, MSJ&E, police, etc. after the CVO's preliminary investigation report was submitted to the Commission.
3. The CVC may provide a copy of its preliminary investigation report, which must contain its own findings and remarks on CVO, NPCIL, DAE, PM, CBI, CVC, NCSC, NMC, NHRC, IB, police department, Parliamentary committee on SC/ST, MSJ&E, etc.
4. A replica of the In voicing a view on the CVO's report, the Commission referenced its guidelines, which state that the omission might be a blatant violation of procedural rules.
5. Copies of each file note contained in the CVO report, ranging from the dealing hand level to the secretary level, may be provided.
6. Copies of the guidelines outlining the suggested procedure for conducting a preliminary inquiry at the CVO level.
7. Data and documents that provide the CVO with confirmation that the preliminary investigation conducted by the police department, Parliamentary committee of SC/ST, MSJ&E, CVO, NPCIL, DAE, PM, CBI, CVC, NCSC, NMC, NHRC, IB, and others followed the right protocol. Given that it lacked technical expertise, a written explanation, a statement or version of the officer's facts, and a certificate from the Committee attesting to the fact that the officer in question was given any opportunity, this is a blatant disregard for the CVO policies.
8. Copies of the regulations or framework that the CVO used to reach its decision, which was based on the findings of a one-sided investigation that violated the Commission's set standards and the natural justice doctrine.
9. The data and documents in the preliminary inquiry report are trustworthy enough to serve as the foundation for a recommendation or conclusion.... etc."
9. Further, it is pertinent to note that the information sought for in the RTI Application except for point no.1 therein does not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and expecting the CPIO, CVC to provide "all correspondences; all notings" with respect to 133 complaints filed by him amounts to an impractical demand for information. It is apparent that the Appellant is channelizing a grievance against Department of Atomic Page 5 of 9 Energy by way of filing such RTI Applications which do not seek for any specific information per se. Yet, the CPIO has informed the status of action taken on each of these complaints and has even transferred the RTI Application to Department of Atomic Energy which was unwarranted as the Appellant had sought to know records held with CVC with respect to these complaints and considering the Appellant's apparent penchant for filing grievance petitions and RTI Application(s)/Appeal(s) under the RTI Act, it will not be out of place to assume that if the Appellant had wanted the records held with Department of Atomic Energy, he would have accordingly filed the RTI Application as per Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act with the concerned authority.
In the facts of the instant case, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, Page 6 of 9 and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.'
10. Similarly, 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
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 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 Page 7 of 9 `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 8 of 9
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."
11. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention or relief to be ordered in the matter.
12. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Central Vigilance Commission, CPIO, RTI (Branch), Satarkata Bhawan, Block-A, C.G.O. Complex, I. N. A. New Delhi-110023 2 Dr Sreeramappa Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)