Central Information Commission
Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 12 May, 2011
1
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220
Appellant : Sh. V.K. Sharma,
Chandigarh
Public Authority : Home Deptt. (III),
Chandigarh.
(Sh. Amrit Pal Sharma, CPIO
and Sh.
Sh.Amitabawa)
Date of Hearing : 12 May 2011
Date of Decision : 12 May 2011
Facts:
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma submitted RTI application dated 9.7.2010 before the CPIO, Supdt. HomeIII, Chandigarh Administration seeking time etc. pertaining to chargesheets issued to him on 5.10.2004, 9.3.2005 and 31.6.2007 alongwith decision taken on his application dated 5.5.2010 - enclosed wherewith as Annexure 'A'.
2. Vide order dated 10.8.2010, the CPIO denied disclosure of information as requested under Points No. 1, 2 and 4 of the RTI application by citing the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant preferred appeal dated 6.9.2010 before the First Appellate Authority which was decided vide FAA order dated 5.10.2010 in which it was recorded that in the matter pertaining to disciplinary inquiry against the appellant the penalty of stoppage of two increments had been imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, on account of the fact that the appellant had filed appeal against the orders of the disciplinary authority, it was held that the proceedings in the case were still not complete and denial of Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220 2 information was upheld under the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above orders, the appellant challenged them before the Commission by preferring second appeal. The matter was heard today. Both parties were present as above and presented arguments. The appellant stated with great thrust that penalty had already been awarded and the disciplinary proceedings were complete and over. However, he had sought information from the respondent so as to prepare a wellargued appeal against the penalty imposed upon him which opportunity he had been denied on account of refusal of the information sought by him. He further stated that information provided under Point No. 3 was incomplete and vague. The respondent confirmed that chargesheet dated 5.10.2004 was disposed of and final orders was passed on 4.5.2010 and chargesheet dated 9.3.2005 was also put to final closure through order dated 15.7.2010. The appellant stated that denial of information to him by the respondent was willful and showed malafide intention. The respondent confirmed that the disciplinary proceedings were now over and they were willing to provide full and complete information as sought by the appellant in his RTI application.
Decision Notice
4. After hearing both parties and on persuing the facts on record, the Commission notes that even though final orders had been passed and penalty awarded to the appellant well before the orders of the CPIO dated 10.8.2010 and the First Appellate Authority, dated 5.10.2010, they continued to deny disclosure of information to the appellant by citing Section 8(1)(h) of the Act which allows exemption from disclosure of "information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"
5. Therefore, this denial of disclosure is unjustified and does not stand scrutiny of law.
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220 3 Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide full and complete pointwise information to the appellant within one week of receipt of the order. The Commission observes that in response to Point No. 3 of the RTI application, CPIO has stated that the application of the appellant dated 5.5.2010 has been examined and the same has been filed by the competent authority. The Commission is in agreement with the appellant that this amounts to denial of information and respondent is directed to provide full notings pertaining to the disposal of this letter up to the point of final decision. The information, as above, be furnished within one week of the receipt of the orders.
6. Through this order, the Commission issues Notice to the then CPIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for having wrongly denied the information to the appellant. Opportunity of personal hearing is provided to him and he is directed to appear before Commission on 24.6.2011 at 12.30 PM at UT Guest House, Sector6, Chandigarh.
7. The Commission observes that the then first Appellate Authority Smt. Prerna Puri adjudicated upon the matter without application of mind and clearly showing bias against disclosure of information even though the enquiry was complete and over and final orders had already been passed by the competent authority thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity of making a well argued appeal against the punishment awarded to him to the next higher authority. Under the powers of the Commission under Section 20(2), the Commission recommends controlling authority to issue memo of stricture to her for lapse in discharging his duties as mandated under the RTI Act.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220 4 Copy to:
1. Shri Vinod KumarSharma House No.2254, Sector19C, Chandigarh
2. The CPIO The Supdt. Home111, Chandigarh Administration Sectt.
Sector19C, UT Chandigarh
3. The Appellate Authority The Supdt. Home111, Chandigarh Administration Sectt.
Sector19C, UT Chandigarh
4. Shri Bhupiner Singh Joint Transport Commissioner Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh
5. The Commissioner Transport Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh (The officers mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4 & 5 - orders to be served through UT Secretariat, Chandigarh) Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220