Central Information Commission
Noratan Mal Koli vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 11 April, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2020/678748
Shri Noratan Mal Koli ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited,
Rawatbhatta
Date of Hearing : 07.04.2022
Date of Decision : 11.04.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.02.2020
PIO replied on : 07.03.2020
First Appeal filed on : 16.03.2020
First Appellate Order on : 05.06.2020
nd
2 Appeal/complaintreceived on : 20.07.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 12.02.2020 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Rawatbhatta, vide letter dated 07.03.2020 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response receivedfrom the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.03.2020. The FAA/Associate Director, Nuclear Power Page 1 of 3 Corporation of India Limited, Rawatbhatta, vide order dated 05.06.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated
02.04.2022 wherein it was stated that the information sought pertained to the memorandum dated 09.09.2016 issued against him and that the same should be disclosed.
A written submission has also been received from the CPIO, NPCIL dated 05.04.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that at this stage even if the report is per se not disclosed at least the information on whether his name features in the investigation report of the CBI or not can be provided.
The Respondent represented by Shri Debashish Giri, CPIO and Sr Manager participated in the hearing through video conference. He referred to the FAA's order and stated that severing the information is not possible since it contains investigation report of vigilance alongwith the internal file notings during the process till the first stage advice from CVC in respect of many officials against whom investigation has been done. Thus, providing the information may endanger the life and physical safety of officers who were associated with the process. Furthermore, the information sought includes third party information from CBI and CVC which is confidential and cannot be shared without their specific permission. Thus, information is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (g), (j) and Section 11 of the Act.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission agrees with the concern raised by the Respondent regarding non disclosure of information in view of the fact that proceedings would contain third party information of other accused persons. Furthermore, the Appellant is seeking investigation reports prepared by CBI which is an organization exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 (1) r/w the Second Schedule of the Act. It is also a settled position of law that what the information seeker cannot seek from an exempted organization like the CBI, he cannot attempt to get the same from his employer or other agencies. In this context, the following observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gulab Singh Rana vs CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd and Ors, WP (C) 37231/ 2016 decided on 08.12.2021 made in a case where the information was seeking information from his employer (Indian Overseas Bank) about request for prosecution sought against him by the CBI:
"51. The above findings of the Central Information Commission explicitly clarifies that what an information seeker could not able to get from the CBI, cannot attempt to get from his employer or from other agencies. Such Page 2 of 3 calculated applications filed under the RTI Act, at no circumstances, are entertainable. In the present case, the information and documents sought for are no doubt relating to the files being maintained by the CBI and about the investigation of the Criminal case, so also pertaining to the sanction, which all are relatable to investigation/interrogation or prosecution. Thus, the first proviso to Section 24(1) cannot be extended merely under the ground that the word 'Corruption' is employed in the Statute."
However, a balanced approach is required to be taken as per the RTI Act, 2005. While protecting the rights of the other parties and the need to ensure that the criminal law system of prosecution by the state is not affected or destroyed on account of providing confidential information to applicants it is equally important to ensure that adequate efforts are made to ensure that the rights of the accused to defend himself is also given weightage. The need for the official facing disciplinary inquiry to be provided with all the material against him has been explained in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. L.K. Puri 151 DLT 2008, as under:
'The principle of law, on the conjoint reading of the two judgments, as aforesaid, would be that in case there is such material, whether in the form of comments/findings/ advise of UPSC/CVC or other material on which the disciplinary authority acts upon, it is necessary to supply the same to the charge sheeted officer before relying thereupon any imposing the punishment, major or minor, in as much as cardinal principle of law is that one cannot cat on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent official. Otherwise, such advice of UPSC can be furnished to the Government servant along with the copy of the penalty order as well as per Rule 32 of the CCS(CCA) Rules."
Thus, in view of the above, the Commission directs Shri Debashish Giri, CPIO and Sr Manager to give a revised reply to the Appellant only indicating in the affirmative or negative if the Appellant's name was included in the investigation report of the CBI. The above direction should be complied with by 30.04.2022 under intimation to the Commission.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off with the above direction.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3