Central Information Commission
Tilak Raj vs Bureau Of Indian Standards on 1 May, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BISHQ/A/2017/604791
Tilak Raj ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Consumer Affairs, ... ितवादी /Respondent
Food & Public Distribution, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.07.2017 FA : 04.08.2017 SA: 08.09.2017
CPIO : 04.08.2017 FAO : 01.09.2017 Hearing: 29.04.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi seeking following information of the vigilance Case of Sh. Tilak Raj, Scientist 'D', BIS:-
1. "Copies of all the green note sheet of Sh. Tilak Raj, Scientist -D, BIS against whom a vigilance case was issued vide file no Vig/40/5/2014-15/03.
2. Please also allow me to inspect the file."
2. The CPIO responded on 04.08.2017. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 04.08.2017 which was disposed of by the first Page 1 of 4 appellate authority on 01.09.2017. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Tilak Raj was not present despite notice. Mr. Veena Duggal, PS (Vigilance)/CPIO and Mr. Chinmay Dwivedi, Sc. D & Vigilance Officer, BIS participated in the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent informed the Commission that the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Tilak Raj have been concluded and a penalty was imposed on him vide DG, BIS order no. Vig/40/5/2014-15/03/1639 dated 07.07.2017. Further, they stated that the vigilance file of the appellant cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby came within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, they referred to an earlier decision of the Commission in case no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the reliance was placed by the Commission upon the decision of Shri K. L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi in CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.
Decision:
5. This Commission observed that the disclosure of the complete vigilance file and providing the opportunity of its inspection to the appellant would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated with the completion of the said inquiry. This Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission which has been relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
"6...In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as Page 2 of 4 the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."
6. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that the furnishing of the copies of the entire green note sheet(s) of the vigilance file of the appellant and providing him an opportunity to inspect the complete vigilance file may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also to be noted that the necessary documents as required to be given under the department/vigilance rules have already been provided to the appellant. Hence, copy of the vigilance file cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 29-04-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/o. Consumer Affairs & Food &
Public Distribution, Bureau of Indian Standards, AD(A&F) Vigilance Dept. 9, Manak Bhavan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
2. Tilak Raj Page 4 of 4