Central Information Commission
Shri R.K. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance, ... on 29 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000829
Dated, the 29th January, 2010.
Appellant : Shri R.K. Jain
Respondents : Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central
Excise This matter was heard on 28.01.2010 in the presence of both parties pursuant to Commission's notice dated 21.12.2009. Appellant was present in person, while the respondents were represented by Shri Avinash Pushkarna, Joint Commissioner & Appellate Authority and Shri Rohit Singhal, Deputy Commissioner & CPIO.
2. Matter in this second-appeal is related to appellant's RTI-application dated 11.08.2009, which comprised the following queries:-
"(A) Inspection of File Opening Register in respect of the files opened by Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise for the year 2000 to 2009 (upto May).
(B) Copies of the List of Files, indicating File Numbers, and Subject relating to Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise for the years 2000 to 2009 (upto May).
(C) The CD Diskette of the information referred to above clause (A). Even if the date is available in digital form, for a part of the period, please supply the data.
(D) List of files pertaining to Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise weeded out during the years 2000 to 2009 (upto May) with File Numbers, Subject, Date of their weeding out and the orders, directions or instructions under which weeded out.
(E) Copy of the instructions, circulars, orders, OM, policy and practice in relation to weeding out of files being followed AT-29012010-05.doc Page 1 of 3 / adopted in the Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise.
(F) Copies of records, files and documents as requested during or after inspection."
3. These were replied to by the CPIO through his communication dated 11.09.2009 and the first-appeal was decided on 22.10.2009 by the Appellate Authority (AA).
4. What emerged during the hearing was that the respondent-public authority does have a system of maintaining File Opening Register, in which the number of the file, date, the detail of the petitioner or the complainant and a brief description of the subject were entered. Since the public authority is a Vigilance Department, they handle all matters relating to enquiries against officers and employees of the Department which was mostly conducted in secrecy. The reason for maintaining secrecy was that any premature disclosure of information regarding the officer, who might be the subject of an enquiry/complaint, might tar his reputation and the blemish may not go even if he were eventually vindicated. Such disclosure may also have a demoralizing effect on the officer in particular and the organization in general. Similarly, disclosure of the name of the complainant may expose him to avoidable harassment and victimization. In certain cases, such complainants could be whistleblowers from within the organization and would be reluctant to have their identities exposed.
5. It was, therefore, argued on behalf of the respondents that there were great sensitivities involved in this disclosure request and should, therefore, be treaded cautiously.
6. Appellant forcefully argued that quite frequently an enquiry or an investigation against officers of the Department was used to cow them down and to force them into doing what their conscience would not permit them to. He alleged that very often frivolous enquiries were allowed to pend for long time, whereas serious complaints were abruptly closed. This was the way favourites were protected whereas the upright were victimised.
7. From what has been stated, all that can be said is there are important arguments for and against disclosure of this variety of information. It is necessary that wider consultation is held before a decision is made in this matter.
AT-29012010-05.doc Page 2 of 3
8. We may seek Chief Vigilance Commissioner's guidance and advice regarding the advisability of allowing the above information to be disclosed.
9. Hearing may be re-scheduled after the receipt of CVC's advice.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-29012010-05.doc Page 3 of 3