Central Information Commission
M Ramadoss vs Department Of Financial Services on 22 September, 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/DOFSR/A/2024/647107
M Ramadoss ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of
Financial Services, New ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01.08.2024 FA : 05.09.2024 SA : 23.10.2024
CPIO : 29.08.2024 FAO : 03.10.2024 Hearing : 09.09.2025
Date of Decision: 19.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
I retired as CMD, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 31.12.2013. During my service I was served a charge sheet to hold a domestic inquiry against me for allegations of misuse of my authority when I was CMD, Oriental Insurance company Ltd., during the period March 2005 to December 2009. This Charge Memo is dated 30.11.2011 (copy enclosed). I would like you to supply me the following information regarding this charge memo.Page 1 of 4
1. Sanction details of the Disciplinary Authority to institute the Inquiry against me under Rule 14, Sub Rule 2 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
2. Sanction details of the Disciplinary Authority for the Articles of Charges under Rule 14 sub Rule 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
3. Other File Notings.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The information sought is exempted from disclosure as per Sec 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.10.2024.
5. The appellant's representative attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Abdul Gofran, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant's representative inter alia submitted that even after 13 years of hearing before CBI, the charges have not been framed yet, which proves that the same are flimsy, and the denial of information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is untenable. He further argued that denial of the documents sought in the RTI application prevented him from effectively challenging the penalty order and causing continuous prejudice.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that although the disciplinary proceedings had concluded, the case registered by CBI under Section 420 of IPS is still pending. They further relied upon their written submissions dated 09.09.2025:
Page 2 of 4"In this context, it may be noted that although the Disciplinary Authority has concluded the disciplinary proceedings by imposing a penalty of a 30% cut in pension permanently on Shri M. Ramadoss, however, several other court cases still remain pending adjudication in various courts as stated at para above, particularly, a writ petition no. 6078/2025 titled as M. Ramadoss Vs Union of India before Hon'ble Madras High Court filed by the appellant challenging the disciplinary action of the Disciplinary Authority. Further, the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under Section 420 of the IPC against Shri Ramadoss and others pertaining to charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal misconduct is still pending and next date of hearing is fixed as 27.9.2025 for arguments. Given the sensitive nature of the matter, where OICL and various banks have taken exposure of loss of ₹441.30 crores, and considering that several cases are sub judice, the information sought by the appellant has been rightfully denied. The disclosure of such information is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as it could potentially impede the investigation and the defence of the Union of India and other authorities involved in these proceedings."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the response given by the respondent is appropriate, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The disclosure of information, otherwise under consideration for investigation as well as owing to the pending proceedings before CBI cannot be allowed on the plea that the framing of charges have been delayed over the years. Moreover, the issue for consideration before the Commission is disclosure of the information and not to adjudicate upon grounds for delay in framing of charges by CBI, if any. The justification and explanations cited for withholding the information, which can potentially impede pending investigation are found sustainable in the eyes of Page 3 of 4 law. No further intervention is called for in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 19.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Department of Financial Services, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, 10, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001 2 M Ramadoss Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)