Central Information Commission
Smt.B R Meena vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 8 December, 2011
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000950
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000950
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : B.R Meena
Respondent : Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 02.11.2011
ORDER
1. The Appellant through his RTI Application has sought the following information from the Respondent public authority
1. What is the criteria/grounds of empanelment of IPS Officers, 97, Batch?
2. What is the ground for my name is not considered for empanelment for DIG post?
3. If any objection, what is the criteria of deciding on equality basis/without any discrimination in same circumstance in vigilance case or any query?
4. What is the basis of ACR Marking/Evaluation & how many years of ACRs considered for empanelment?
1
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000950
5. What is the criteria of ACR Evaluation by CPEB Member, and what marks evaluated in my case by each Member and give the name of Members who assigned the mark/grade & provide copy of the evaluation sheet.
6. What are the criterian/ground for empanelment of following officers for post of IG/DIG while their departmental enquiry/prosecution sanction are still pending?
1. Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, 1986-UP
2. Sh. Mukul Goel, 1987-UP
3. Sh. Prabhat Kumar, 1988-UP
4. Sh. Malkhan Singh Yadav, 1989-UP
5. Sh. Shailender Pratap Singh, 1989-UP
6. Sh. Daljeet Singh Choudhary, 1990-UP
7. Sh. A.K. Prasad, 1991-UP
8. Sh. Jogdand B. Pandit Rao, 1991-UP
9. Sh. Mukesh Shukla, 1992-UP
10. Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta, 1993-UP
11. Sh. Prakash D, 1994-UP
7. Whether any vigilance clearance was sought to consider for empanelment from CVC of these officers on promotion to IG/DIG and provide copy of CVC Guidance letter dated 04.05.2010 for confirmation the stand taken by MHA on the vigilance status of above officers (Sh. Mukul Goel, IPS-UP, 1987) having treated him as free from vigilance angle at the time of his empanelment at the centre? 2
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000950
8. Whether the same criteria for seeking vigilance clearances/CVC opinion was sought in my case in same circumstance, if not, then state the reason?
9. Please provide the copy of CPEB Committee proceeding No. 203rd in my case for consideration of empanelment on dated 10.02.2011
2. The CPIO vide his letter dated 28/03/2011 has refused to furnish the information by relying upon the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State information Commission.
3. Subsequently in first Appeal the FAA has upheld the order of the CPIO with the exception that information sought under point (ix) of the RTI Application be provided to the Appellant. Hence this Appeal.
4. The Commission has considered all the submissions on record.
5. The question which needs to be answered in this appeal is whether the CPIO and FAA was justified in denying the information by relying upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State information Commission.
3
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000950
6. In Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State information Commission the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that :
"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."
7. In the present RTI application only in question (8), the Appellant has sought reasons for the decision. Question (8) of the RTI Application is as follows:
"whether the same criteria for seeking vigilance clearances / CVC opinion was sought in my case in the same circumstances, if not, then state the reason?"
8. Now just because there is only one question in the whole RTI Application which calls for reasons to be furnished, will it render the whole RTI unanswerable. The answer lies in the negative. The CPIO as well as FAA should have furnished point wise reply to the Appellant. 4
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000950
9. The CPIO is therefore directed to furnish the correct point wise reply to the Appellant in accordance the provisions of the RTI Act within 21 days of the receipt of this order.
10.The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Fifth Day of December, 2011 Authenticated True Copies (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Name & Address of Parties:
Sh. B.R. Meena, A14, Sector1, PDIL Bhawan, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, PIN - 201 301 The CPIO Ministry of Home Affairs, Police Division, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 The Joint Secretary (P1) cum First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 5