Central Information Commission
Jagmohan Singh Raju vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 25 April, 2021
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/DOP&T/A/2019/149557
Jagmohan Singh Raju .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o Personnel, PG & Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
RTI Cell, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/04/2021
Date of Decision : 24/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 26/08/2019
First appeal filed on : 03/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 30/09/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/10/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 29.07.2019 seeking the following information:1
a) "Provide a copy of DoPT's OM No.321/4/910-AVD III dated 29.09.1992.
b) Provide a copy of DoPT's OM No.104/48/2014-AVD.I (Part) dated 03.01.2019.
c) Provide a copy of the entire file No.104/48/2014-AVD.I (Part) including noting and correspondence portions.
d) Provide a copy of the entire file No.344/4/2019-AVD-III, including noting and correspondence portions."
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 26.08.2019 stated as follows:-
"Point (b) and (c):- Do not pertain to AVD-111 Division of DoP&T. The information/copies of documents sought under these two points are not in the domain of the Section under the charge of undersigned CPIO and it is observed that in this respect the request has already been assigned to the concerned CPIO for appropriate disposal.
Point (a):-A copy of DoP&T's OM No. 321/4/91-AVD-111, dated 29/09/1992 is enclosed.
Point (d):- It is informed that since the WP(C) No. 7506/2019 filed by you in High Court of Delhi is being dealt on the same file, which is subjudice as on date, the entire file no. 344/4/2019-AVD-III, including noting and correspondence portions as sought by appellant, cannot be provided to him at this stage, as it is felt that the internal notes recorded thereon may compromise the defence of the Government."
Being dissatisfied with the denial of the information on point 1(d) of the RTI Application, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.09.2019. FAA's order dated 30.09.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Rajiv Lochan, US & CPIO present through audio conference.2
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information on point no.1(D) of the RTI Application as no exemption clause of the RTI Act has been invoked by the CPIO to deny the same.
The CPIO contended that there was no denial of information per se as the Appellant was merely informed that during the pendency of the averred Court Case, the notes and correspondences cannot be provided as it will compromise their defense. He further submitted that the information can be provided to the Appellant after the Court case is concluded since even as on date the matter is pending.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the issue emanating for determination in the instant case is squarely covered by a decision of a coordinate bench in the matter of Ram Krishna Nelli vs. DoPT in File No. CIC/DOP&T/C/2018/155355 + CIC/DOP&T/A/2018/155357 dated 17.07.2020 wherein the following was held:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commission is of the considered opinion that the denial of information is not arbitrary but with a cogent reasoning which is squarely covered by a similar rationale relied upon by a full bench of the Commission in the matter of C. Seetharamaiah vs. Commissionerate of Customs & Central Excise (File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238) which in the context of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act reproduced hereunder:
'37....and what was more any disclosure of this information to the appellant at this stage would undoubtedly cause injury to the CBI's presentation of the case on behalf of the prosecution before the Trial Court. Forcing CBI to provide to the appellant evidence, records and documents it otherwise would not provide to him or provide to him only through the directive of the Trial Court, would have the effect of interfering with the CBI's right to marshall evidence and to present it in the manner or in the sequence, which in its judgment, would be necessary to prove the guilt of the accused. This is CBI's right as the complainant before the Trial Court, which would be seriously compromised if the accused were allowed to force it to give out information and documents through the RTI Act.
38. The central point of this line of argument is that no attempt to harm the integrity of the prosecution proceeding before the Court as already laid down in several laws of the land, should be allowed to succeed by casting on the public authority or the prosecuting agency obligations which criminal and evidence laws do not assign to them. No public interest is served by such actions. On the 3 contrary, public interest is positively harmed when interested parties are given the privilege of interrogating a prosecuting agency about its actions vis-à-vis that party through an RTI proceeding when the prosecution before a Trial Court is already extant.' In strict sense, it may be out of place to read the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act into the facts of the instant case but when there are two conflicting interests, the preamble of the RTI Act lends clarity and effectively adds perspective which reads as under:
"And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;.."
For instance, the aforesaid ratio has been cited by another coordinate bench in the matter of Deepak Khemka vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India in File No. CIC/CBIND/A/2017/148672 where information sought pertained to a recovery proceeding initiated by the bank against a firm that was at the time pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The relevant excerpt from the said decision is as under:
"6. .....As per the respondent, the other documents pertaining to the Schefields Ltd. are directly relevant to the matter pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Commission notes that in the matter of Shri C. Seetharamaiah vs. Commissionerate of Customs & Central Excise, [File No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01238 dated 07.06.2010] full bench of this Commission has held...."
Further, Commission finds it relevant to emphasize on the nature of the conflicting interest in this case if disclosure were to be allowed of the documents based on which Respondent office is to defend their case, and by any measure case of the Respondent office is hampered by such disclosure, invariably the litigation will continue in the form of further appeals and reviews sought by the department. It is common knowledge that when government bodies are brought into litigation or vice versa when government bodies initiate litigation, it is at the cost of the public exchequer. It is in this context that in the recent years, discussions have surfaced in public domain regarding the bane of the government being the biggest litigant in the country. This is where the National Litigation Policy came to be formulated by the Ministry of Law and Justice, to bring down the instances where government is party to litigation. Although, in the instant case, the litigation has been allegedly initiated by the Appellant, fact remains that if the Respondent office is compelled to disclose the material based on which it seeks to pursue its defense, the case will invariably lead to a state of limbo or result in a scenario where the Respondent office may initiate further litigation.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances discussed above, Commission finds no infirmity in the denial of information by the CPIO on paras 1, 4 & 5 of the RTI Application."
Now, it is pertinent to note that having simultaneously heard another Appeal of the Appellant filed vide File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2019/133486 against the Cabinet 4 Secretariat, both these cases appear to be closely related to a bunch matter of the same Appellant heard and decided by another coordinate bench of Commission vide File Nos. CIC/CABST/C/2019/127527 + six related cases on 12.02.2021, relevant extracts of the said decision is reproduced hereunder for lending clarity:
"Upon hearing the detailed averments and perusal of the records at length, the following facts emerge:
i. The subject matter of all the complaints and second appeals discussed above relates to the common subject matter of process of empanelment of the Applicant as Additional Secretary in the Central Government.
xxx v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench decided OA No. 2261/2017 vide order dated 12.10.2018 declining the plea to direct the Respondents to consider the Applicant's case for empanelment for the posts of Additional Secretary and thereafter Secretary to the Government of India.
vi. The above order dated 12.10.2018 was challenged by the Applicant before the Delhi High Court as [Writ Petition No. 13808/2018], titled Jagmohan Singh Raju vs. Union of India & Anr. which was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 23.01.2020....
The Delhi High Court considered the brief note submitted before them, explaining the work of REP and the file containing minutes of each of the meetings and deliberations of both the EP as well as the REP and upon due reflection on all relevant documents held that the Court is satisfied that in the Petitioner (here applicant - Sh. Jagdish Singh Raju)'s case the decision making process is not vitiated for being unreasonable or arbitrary. Thus the decision dated 12.10.2018 of the CAT was duly upheld after detailed examination of records.
In the light of the above facts, there remains no doubt that information as permissible within the scope of the RTI Act, has been made available to the Applicant. The Applicant has approached all possible fora in his quest and has been provided reasoned and self explanatory decisions by the respective adjudicating authorities declining his plea. It is not a case where the Applicant does not have the information or has been denied access thereof, in fact vide the above mentioned cases, he has sought to revisit the same issues and queries which stand adjudicated by the Delhi High Court in its detailed reasoned order dated 23.01.2020, which has been discussed above. Thus the relief sought by the Applicant in the above cases does not dwell with access to the information, but it is a case where he seeks to settle inter se dispute with the Respondent on the belief that he has been wrongly denied empanelment to the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India...."
5The aforesaid case discussion further compels this bench to echo the rationale of the decision in the Ram Krishan Nelli's (supra) matter in the instant Appeal as it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that back and forth litigation is being pursued by either party with respect to the Appellant's service-related grievance, therefore a premature disclosure of the defense of the Respondent office will not be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission is constrained to not order any relief in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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 / 6