Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil - India Government Mint, Mumbai on 23 June, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/IGMUM/A/2019/601741
Satish Ashok Sherkhane ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai. ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03-12-2018 FA : 01-01-2019 SA : 30-01-2019
CPIO : 01-01-2019 FAO : 29-01-2019 Hearing: 15-06-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), India Govt. Mint, Mumbai seeking following information:-
1. "Please refer to my complaint dated 17-10-2018 under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 submitted by Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg Police Station, Fort, Mumbai to India Govt. Mint, Mumbai.
Description of Information required: With reference to the above, please provide certified copies of the following documents from 22- 11-2018 to 03-12-2018 along with the signature of PIO & stamp:
a) Provide all the zerox copes of the documents which are received from Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg Police Station along with file notings and signature of the officers.
b) Provide all the zerox copes of the documents which are prepared and executed in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai with reference to the documents which were received from Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg Police Station along with file notings and signature of the officers.Page 1 of 7
c) Provide all the zerox copes of the documents which are prepared and executed in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai & issued to Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg Police Station along with file notings and signature of the officers.
d) Provide all the zerox copes of the documents which are prepared and executed in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai & issued to Mr. Ajai Kumar Srivastav, Director (T), SPMCIL, New Delhi along with source of communication.
e) Provide all the zerox copes of the documents which are prepared and executed in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai & issued to SPMCIL, New Delhi along with file notings and signature of the officers.
f) Provide all the zerox copes of the documents which are prepared and executed in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai & issued to any other department or authority or employee along with file notings and signature of the officers.
2. Provide the zerox copy of attendance muster of Administration Section, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai for the month of July 2015 along with all remarks, file noting & signature of officers.
3. Provide the zerox copy of attendance muster of Estate Section, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai for the month of February 2015 along with all remarks, file noting & signature of officers."
2. The CPIO responded on 01-01-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 01-01-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 29-01- 2019. 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, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Satish Ashok Sherkhane attended the hearing through audio/video conferencing. Ms. Rashmi Singh, Dy. Manager (HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio/video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that he had received the same set of information from the police department but the CPIO, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai has claimed exemption for denying this information u/Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. If the information was of exempted category, it is the police department who should have claimed the exemption and not the CPIO, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai. He contended that the departmental enquiry does not come under the ambit of Page 2 of 7 'investigation' referred to in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He emphasized that the meaning of 'investigation' should be as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and once the police has completed the investigation, it should be treated as complete. Therefore, the documents referred to in point nos. 1(a) to 1(f) should be provided to him, as these documents must have been available with the public authority. On point nos. 2 and 3, only partial information has been provided to him and hence, attendance muster of the Administration and Estate Section(s), India Govt. Mint, Mumbai respectively for the month of July 2015 and February 2015 should be provided to him.
5. The respondent submitted that the matter is under investigation and its disclosure at this stage has potential to impede the ongoing process of investigation and therefore, they have claimed the exemption u/Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the information on point nos. 1(a) to 1(f). Further, they have provided a copy of the attendance muster of the appellant and claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the attendance muster of other individuals.
6. With regard to the investigation in departmental vigilance cases, the respondent contended that mere submission of the investigation report by the investigating officer cannot be construed as the completion of the investigation. Therefore, the investigation in departmental vigilance cases under the RTI Act, 2005 can be said to be complete only when a final decision is taken by the competent authority to pursue any further action in the matter. As such, disclosure of information prior to the final view in the matter would be premature having serious implications on the subject matter of the enquiry and the connected vigilance officials. To buttress her contention, she referred to the double bench decision dated 01-06-2006 in CIC/AT/A/2006/00039. Decision:
7. On the legal aspect of the term 'investigation' vis-à-vis the vigilance cases of the public authority and the exemption u/Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission takes note of the unanimous double bench decision dated 01-06- 2006 in CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 titled as Shri Govind Jha v. Army HQs, New Delhi, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"8. In examining this case, the critical point is whether the plea of continuing investigation taken by the appellate authority and the CPIO is a valid plea, which would have the support of the exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. It is to be considered whether an investigation can be said to be over just Page 3 of 7 because the officer entrusted with such investigation has completed his task and submitted the report to the competent authority. This will also mean that an investigation and a decision in that investigation are two separate stages and cannot be said to constitute a continuum.
9. While in criminal law, an investigation can be said to be completed with the filing of the charge sheet in an appropriate court by an investigating agency, in cases of vigilance related enquiries, misconduct and disciplinary matters, the investigation can be said to be over only when the competent authority makes a determination about the culpability or otherwise of the person or persons investigated against. In that sense, the word investigation used in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act should be construed rather broadly and should include all enquiries, verification of records, assessments and so on which may be ordered in specific cases. In all such matters, the enquiry or the investigation should be taken as completed only after the competent authority makes a prima-facie determination about presence or absence of guilt on receipt of the investigation/enquiry report, from the investigation/enquiry officer.
10. There is another aspect to this matter. If for the sake of argument, it is agreed that the report of investigation in any matter can be disclosed immediately after the officer investigating the cases concludes his investigation and prepares the report which, let us assume, impeaches the conduct of a given officer. In case the competent disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the investigating officer, disclosure of the report even before a final decision by the competent authority, would be inconsequential. There shall be problem, however, if the disciplinary/appointing authority chooses to disagree with the findings of the investigating officer. Early disclosure of the investigation report in such a case, besides being against the norms of equity, would have caused irretrievable injury to the officer/person's (who would have been the subject of investigation) standing and reputation. His demoralisation would be thorough.
11. In exempting from disclosure matters pertaining to an on- going investigation (Section 8 (1) (h) ), the RTI Act besides other reasons, also caters to the possible impact of the disclosure of such information on the public servants' morale and their self-
Page 4 of 7esteem. There are, thus, weighty reasons for such a provision in the exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
12. We are keenly aware that one of the purposes of the enactment of the RTI Act is to combat corruption by improving transparency in administration. This objective should be achieved without impairing the interest of the honest employee. Premature disclosure of investigation-related information has the potentiality to tar the employee's reputation, permanently, which cannot be undone even by his eventual exoneration. The balance of advantage thus, lies in exempting investigations/enquiries in vigilance, misconduct or disciplinary cases, etc. from disclosure requirements under the Act, till a decision in a given case is reached by the competent authority. This also conforms to the letter and the spirit of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
13. There is one other factor that also needs some reflection. Disclosure of an investigation/enquiry report (as demanded in this case by the appellant) even before its acceptance/rejection by a given competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressures which may hamper cool reflection on the report and compromise objectivity of decision-making.
14. In our considered view, therefore, in investigations in vigilance related cases by CVOs or by departmental officers, as well as in all cases of misconduct, misdemeanour, etc., there should be an assumption of continuing investigation till, based on the findings of the report, a decision about the presence of a prima-facie case, is reached by a competent authority. This will, thus, bar any premature disclosure, including disclosure of the report prepared by the investigating officer, as in this case.
15. We, therefore, hold that the present case attracts the exemption under Section 8(1) (h) and, therefore, disclosure of information as asked for by the appellant, cannot be authorized. The appeal is rejected."
8. In light of the aforesaid decision rendered by the double bench of the CIC in Shri Govind Jha (supra), this Commission is of the opinion that premature release of information in vigilance cases prior to the final decision of the competent authority would prejudice the objective of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The investigation conducted by the investigating officer as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and taking a view on the investigation report by the departmental vigilance agency for deciding about the future course of action thereon, such as warning, training, counseling, initiation of major or minor penalty proceeding, prosecution, discharge simpliciter, etc. cannot be mixed up. Also, the Page 5 of 7 appellant has not brought out any larger public interest in the matter and there is potential of greater harm if information on point nos. 1(a) to 1(f) is disclosed to him prior to any final view in the matter. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the respondent under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is justified in respect of point nos. 1(a) to 1(f).
9. However, disclosure of the attendance muster cannot be considered an invasion on the privacy of an individual and hence does not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide the attendance muster of the Administration and Estate Section(s), India Govt. Mint, Mumbai to the appellant for the month of July 2015 and February 2015 respectively, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date:15-06-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai, (A Unit Of Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), Dy. Manager (HR) & PIO, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.
2. Mr. Satish Ashok Sherkhane Page 7 of 7