Central Information Commission
Shri G.V. Rao vs Centre For Dna, Fingerprinting And ... on 31 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00437
Dated, the 31st October, 2008.
Appellant : Shri G.V. Rao
Respondents : Centre for DNA, Fingerprinting and Diagnostics,
Hyderabad.
This second-appeal, which came up for hearing on 13.10.2008, relates to two RTI-applications of the appellant, dated 11.05.2006 and 30.07.2007. CPIO's replies to the above applications were on 22.09.2006 and 20.11.2007 respectively. An interim reply was also furnished to the appellant by the CPIO on 14.03.2007 relating to revalidation of the Demand Draft dated 11.05.2006 for an amount of Rs.100/-. Appellant's first-appeal was heard on 16.11.2007 and after considerable delay was replied to by the Appellate Authority (AA) on 12.03.2008.
2. The second-appeal has been filed against the order of the appellate Authority cited above. According to the appellant, AA was wrong in recording in that order that the information requested by appellant could not be disclosed as the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were still under way. Appellant has urged that this statement is incorrect since the Director, CDFD being the disciplinary authority had filed a petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh stating that the departmental proceeding against the appellant had been completed.
3. Respondents, in their written-submission, have submitted that the two items of information which the appellant had sought from the respondents were (1) preliminary enquiry report of a committee dated 16/17.07.03 and (2) copy of the entire note file containing the notings and circumstances leading to the appellant's suspension vide orders dated 07.03.05.
4. According to the respondents, the preliminary report which the appellant had solicited was not the basis for the department to proceed against the appellant. It was only a way of satisfy the disciplinary authority that there were lapses by the appellant which needed appropriate disciplinary action. The enquiry in the matter it is still not over. They claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. They have contested the assumption of the appellant that the departmental proceedings in this matter had been completed. According to the respondents, the final orders in this matter are held up on account of an interim order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and hence Page 1 of 3 the proceedings could not be concluded. There cannot be any question of disclosing the information to the appellant before finalization of the proceeding against him.
5. In similar matters which came up before the Commission in the past (V.K. Gulati Vs. DG Vig. Customs & Central Excise; CIC/AT/A/2007/01508; Date of Decision: 17.06.2007), it was the considered view of the Commission that disclosure of information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings, which are in the nature of ongoing investigations, will have the impact of compromising those proceedings and restricting the discretion of the Enquiry Officer to decide as to what documents the officer proceeded against will have access to. Since departmental enquiry is in the nature of ongoing investigation, it is covered by Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The only element which needs to be proved is whether the requested disclosure would impede the process of investigation. It has been the view of the Commission that such disclosures would impede the process of investigation insofar as these would affect the ability of the Enquiry Officer to conduct and regulate the extant departmental proceeding. It is also true that during any preliminary enquiry, a number of witnesses are examined and information is collected. Disclosure of this variety of information would undoubtedly bring out into the open its sources, which will be injurious to the interests of those who offer their assistance to the preliminary enquiry in the confidence that their identity would not be disclosed.
6. Commission has noted that a number of employees of the public authorities facing departmental / vigilance and other forms of proceedings from their respective managements have tended to use the RTI Act to access information ⎯ specially file-notings in their own vigilance matters / disciplinary matters ⎯ in order to somehow lay hands on evidence that they could use in their favour. Commission has no problem with such an approach but since premature disclosure of information, specially file notings, prior to the final decision being made in a disciplinary action has the potential to disrupt the proceedings, Commission has been guarded in authorizing such disclosures. The RTI Act, apart from being a rights-expanding instrument, it is also an instrument for improving governance. In that sense, it is always helpful to be guarded in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings, through which the managements enforce discipline within the organization and bring the guilty employees to book. Most disciplinary proceedings are under laws, which prescribe the processes of the proceeding such as the documents that can be disclosed to the officer proceeded against, the discretion of the enquiry officers to decide what documents to be disclosed to the accused officers in conformity with the norms of justice and fair-play and so on. Each time an RTI-proceeding is started to force disclosure of documents, regardless of what the enquiry officers may have to say on this, potentially the process of the enquiry is impeded. Considering its Page 2 of 3 large ramification, it is unsafe to authorize disclosure of such information under the RTI Act.
7. In view of the above and consistent with the Commission's decisions in such cases, it is directed that the information requested in this application shall not be authorized to be disclosed.
8. The decision of the Appellate Authority is upheld.
9. Appeal disposed with these directions.
10. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 3 of 3