Central Information Commission
Haider Ali Naqvie vs Central Vigilance Commission on 18 December, 2023
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/CVCOM/A/2021/104830
Haider Ali Naqvie ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.07.2020 FA : 17.08.2020 SA : 02.02.2021
CPIO : 25.07.2020 FAO : 16.09.2020 Hearing : 13.12.2023
Date of Decision: 15.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.07.2020 seeking information on the following points:
1. "A copy of the Complaint received by CVC against Sh. Saket Shrivastava and Haider Ali Naqvie regarding missing of the original documents from their custody.
2. Please provide a certified copy of the HUDCO reply to the reference sent by CVC to HUDCO in this regard (With regard to the aforesaid Complaint).
3. Please provide a copy of the Assurance Memo alongwith all its annexures as sent by HUDCO CVO to CVC in this regard (With regard to the aforesaid Complaint).Page 1 of 5
4. Whether CVC as per its 1st Stage Advice had advised and permitted HUDCO for the conduction of DE for the major penalty against Sh. Saket Shrivastava and Haider Ali Naqvie in the instant matter based on the Complaint received by the CVC under PIDPI.
5. Please provide a certified copy of the CVC 1st Stage Advice to HUDCO in the matter.
6. Is it correct that as per the Para 7.9.7 of Chapter VII of the CVC Vigilance Manual 2017, it is a right of the Charged Officer to get the certified copy of the CVC 1st Stage Advice from the prosecution during the disciplinary proceedings.
During the ongoing Disciplinary Proceedings against us, HUDCO has refused to provide this document to us (COS). Whether it is mandatory for HUDCO to comply with the aforesaid provisions
7. Whether it is mandatory for an organisation (HUDCO in this case) to take first stage advice of CVC for initiating departmental disciplinary proceeding for the major penalty in the instant matter, if the Complaint had been received by the CVC under PIDPI and forwarded to HUDCO. Please provide copy of the rules, regulations, provisions, advice, opinion, directions, etc. issued by CVC in this regard."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Para-1: In your above said RTI Application, you have sought information regarding a complaint made under the provisions of Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer (PIDPI) Resolution. In this regard your attention is drawn to clause 4(ii) of the PIDPI Resolution dated 21.04.2004, wherein it has been stated that "The identity of the complainant will not be revealed unless the complainant himself made the details of the complaint either public or disclosed his identity to any other office or authority". Therefore, keeping in view the above provisions of the PIDPI Resolution, any details about the complaints and status of action taken thereupon etc as mentioned by you in your RTI Application cannot be confirmed or denied.Page 2 of 5
Further, the denial of disclosure of information pertaining to PIDPI complaints has been upheld by Central Information Commission (CIC) also. In one such decision the CIC in the case of Shri R.N. Dwivedi Vs Central Vigilance Commission in case No CIC/WB/A/2008/01082. has decided that "the concerned public authority under DoPT Resolution issued in pursuance of the Supreme Court direction in WP (C) No. 539/2003 is obliged not to disclose the identity of the complainant. We are of the view that the disclosure is then, prima facie, exempted under Sec 8(1)(8)" and "there is no obligation on the part of the public authority to disclose this information to the Appellant". Any information regarding the PIDPI complaint cannot be disclosed to anyone, because disclosure of the same would reveal the identity of the complainant, who makes complaint under the provisions of PIDPI Resolution.
Para-2 to 8: These paras are being transferred (electronically) to respective CPIO/CVC, who is dealing with the affairs of HUDCO.
Para-9-10: The issue raised in these paras of your application do not amount to seeking of information as defined in Section 2(1) of the Right to Information Act and hence, no action is warranted on these paras under RTI Act, 2005. The CIC in its decision in appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 in respect of Dr. D V Rao Vs Department of Legal Affairs has held that "the RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefix such, why, what when whether".
Further, the issue raised in your application are also in the form of redressal of grievance, which is not permissible under the provisions of RTI Act as the applicant can only seek 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This view has been upheld by the Central Information Commission in case No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00821 in the case of Mrs Ashi Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Page 3 of 5 Delhi in which CIC had held that "the grievance of Appellant cannot find redressal under the RTI Act 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2020. The FAA vide order dated 16.09.2020 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 02.02.2021.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Roopal Prakash, Director & CPIO along with S K Gwalia, OSD attended the hearing in person.
6. The Commission remarked at the pendency of the matters before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court where disclosures ordered in PIDPI matters by the CIC have been challenged by CVC and the same stand pending as on date. The Respondent did not tender any submissions per se but conceded with the remarks of the Commission.
7. The Commission brings to the attention of both the parties that a series of directions ordered by a former coordinate bench with respect to the records of PIDPI Resolution has been challenged by CVC before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide the following cases:
1. W.P.(C) 5105/2021 & CM APPL. 15643/2021 - CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. KRISHAN KUMAR
2. W.P.(C) 5596/2021 & CM APPL. 17444/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. MANISHA SINGH
3. W.P.(C) 5600/2021 & CM APPL. 17451/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. O. ABDUL HAMEED
4. W.P.(C) 5674/2021 & CM APPL. 17722/2021- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION vs. ASHWANI KUMAR Page 4 of 5 Having regard to the pending adjudication of the Court, the Commission does not find it proper to proceed on merits with the instant matter which is premised on the same subject matter. The Appellant is at liberty to pursue the matter afresh upon the finality of the above said litigation.
8. The Appeal is closed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 15.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Central Vigilance Commission,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Satarkata Bhawan,
Block -A, C.G.O. Complex, I. N. A.
New Delhi-110023
2. Haider Ali Naquie
Page 5 of 5