Central Information Commission
Rajendra S Chalke vs Mumbai Port Trust on 17 March, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MPTRS/A/2018/152221
Rajendra S Chalke ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Mumbai Port Trust,
Kripanidhi,
9, Walchand Hirachand Marg,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai - 400001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/05/2018
CPIO replied on : 29/05/2018
First appeal filed on : 06/06/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 05/07/2018
Second Appeal dated : 18/08/2018
Date of Hearing : 12/03/2020
Date of Decision : 12/03/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of investigation report prepared by Vigilance Officer for irregularities in Tender No. FA/E&T/183/2012, FA/E&T/190/2013 and FA/E&T/197/2014, copy of approval/order of Competent Authority and CVO to initiate this investigation etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: S.S. Kharche, Sr. Vigilance Officer & CPIO, Mumbai Port Trust, Ballard Estate, Mumbai present through VC.
CPIO submitted that Appellant has sought for copies of investigation report and related documents pertaining to a chargesheet issued to him for irregularities in certain tenders. He further submitted that as the same is under investigation of CBI, disclosure of information will impede the process, hence it was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. He further referred to the detailed written submission sent to the Commission vide letter dated 05.03.2020. It has been submitted therein that CVC directed MbPT to handover the case to CBI for further investigation and the preliminary investigation report prepared by Vigilance was provided to the CBI as a part of the complaint for further investigation and as per correspondence with CBI, the matter is under investigation and statements of MbPT officials are being recorded at CBI. Further, it has been submitted that the averred preliminary investigation report contains details about alleged misconduct/criminal conspiracy by 3 MbPT officials and by 4 private persons in addition to the Appellant and disclosure of the report at this stage will invariably reveal the role of such other persons, details of their misconduct, their line of defence and counter to their defence to the Appellant which may impede the CBI investigation. It has also been asserted that the documents which form the basis of all articles of charges against the Appellant has been already provided to him, thus natural justice has been extended to him by providing all the evidence related to the charges. Furthermore, CPIO submitted that it is only now that CBI has filed chargesheet against the Appellant on the charges in respect of irregularities in processing of tender and award of work with respect to tender work nos. FA/E&T/183/2013, FA/E&T/190/2013, FA/E&T/197/2014 and that these tender works are the same for which the Appellant has sought the investigation report from the CPIO, Vigilance Department, MbPT. Lastly, it has also been brought to the notice of the bench that the chargesheet filed by CBI now has been admitted as special case no. 07 of 2020 with the Mumbai bench.
Appellant argued that since the chargesheet was issued to him on 29.01.2016 and disciplinary proceedings commenced on 04.05.2016, the claim of the CPIO that 2 File No : CIC/MPTRS/A/2018/152221 disclosure of the information will impede the process of investigation is not appropriate.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record and proceedings during hearing that the CPIO has adequately justified the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act as required under Section 19(5) of RTI Act. Per contra the Appellant has sought to isolate the CBI investigation from the departmental action initiated by the Respondent office based on a feeble argument in the grounds of Second Appeal stating that CBI is conducting independent investigation. It is pertinent to note that as informed by the CPIO, the averred investigation also concerns 3 MbPT officials and 4 private persons and therefore the contention that disclosure of the documents sought will also have a bearing on the investigation against such other persons holds ground.
In view of the foregoing, Commission finds no scope of intervention in the reply provided by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
3