Central Information Commission
Mrd P Tigga vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 26 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000833/7281
26 March 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. D. P. Tigga
Mohaddipur North
Near Montessori School,
P.O. Kunraghat,
Gorakhpur - 273008, UP
Respondent : CPIO & RPFC (Vigilance)
EPFO
Vigilance Head Quarters,
15, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2013
PIO replied on : 13/12/2013
First appeal filed on : 31/12/2013
First Appellate Authority order : 30/01/2014
Second Appeal dated : 19/03/2014
Information sought:-
The applicant has sought the following information:-
1. Give the numbers of cases pending against undersigned i.e. D P Tigga, EO/AO, EPFO, SRO, Gorakhpur along with case number and date of initiation.
2. Provide certified copy of Investigation report with complete noting for case no.
Vig./IV(47)10/Pt.II/138 as the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been issued in this case.
3. Status/Action taken on the reply dated 12/09/2013 of Sh. D P Tigga in response to the charge memo dated 22/08/2013 Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. D. P. Tigga through VC Respondent: Mr. Gautam CPIO The appellant stated that enquiry against him has been concluded in the year 2014 and he wants a copy of the IR and the related file notings. The CPIO stated that enquiry findings have been placed before the DA but he is yet to take a final view in the matter. The CPIO claimed Page 1 of 2 exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act arguing that any pre-mature disclosure of information may impede the disciplinary proceedings.
Decision notice:
It is seen that the full bench of this Commission in its order dated 28/11/2014 (File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001020 - A K Agrawal V/S RIL) has held as under: -
"14. This Commission in its decision dated 10.7.2007 in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11 (Shankar Sharma & Others Vs. DGIT) observed that the term 'investigation' used in section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally and that no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that decision is taken. This Commission in CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 - K.S.Prasad vs SEBI, observed that "...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority." This Commission in CIC/DS/A/2013/000138/MP - Narender Bansal vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., has held that the investigation in the matter was complete but further action was under process, and hence it attracted section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the Act."
In the present case the DA is yet to pass his orders. The CPIO has claimed exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. We do not find any legal flaw in the stand taken by the respondent. The information cannot be disclosed at this stage.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2