Central Information Commission
Mr.J C Parihar vs Ministry Of Railways on 22 October, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000961
Dated October 22, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri J.C.Parihar
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Railways
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.5.2.10 with the CPIO, M/o Railways seeking certified copies of all investigation reports of vigilance and any other agency related to investigation of case in which Charge Memorandum dt.22.8.08 had been issued to the Applicant including copies of notings of various authorities on the case file. The CPIO replied on 26.2.10 denying the information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and stating that the action against all the officials found responsible in the case has not been finalized and therefore, the disclosure of information at this stage would impede the process of prosecution. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.11.3.10 with the Appellate Authority making the following submissions stating that the supply of this information will not impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution in any way because the investigation is already complete and on the basis of which Charge sheet has already been issued . He also added that information asked for is not related to personal information, as contended by the PIO as the case had resulted out of a public activity of 'tender finalization in Railway Ministry' and since information is related to the investigations arising out of tender finalization on NF Railway. Also there is no invasion of privacy of any individual. Shri P.K.Sharma, Appellate Authority replied on 13.4.10 enclosing the following information furnished by Shri Jagbir Sehrawat, SO/VigIII vide his note dt.12.4.10 who stated that the CIC through their various decisions in case such as (i) No.CIC/OK/A/2009/000080AD dt.19.6.09, (ii) CIC/OK/A/2008/01101AD dt.19.6.09, (iii) CIC/OK/A/2007/01242AD dt.25.1.08, (iv) CIC/AD/C/2009/001502 dt.20.1.10 had upheld the denial of such information under 8(1)(h). In case (i) above CIC had held that 'the cases are at the prosecution stage and any disclosure at this stage would impede the process of prosecution of the offenders'.
Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.7.5.10 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2010.
3. Shri Vikas Purwar, Dir (Vig.), Shri Rakesh Sharma, SO(RTI) and Shri Jagbir Sehrawat, SO(VigIII) represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.13.10.10 from Shri Raj Singh, PIO which is reproduced below:
.......It is stated that a preventive check was conducted on NF Railway on finalization of tenders for Fabrication, Galvanizing, Supply & Fixing of steel channel sleepers and some irregularities(violation of Railway Board's instructions and procedural lapses etc.) had been detected on part of 9 railway officials. Out of these 9 officials, 3 had been issued major penalty charge sheet. Remaining 6 had been taken up for minor penalty/administrative action. The 3 major penalty cases, including the RTI applicant's case are under inquiry and still not finalized in this case. The documents asked for by the applicant contain information/evidences collected from different sources/witnesses. The information asked is, therefore, exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005 as the disclosure of this information may endanger the life or physical safety of witnesses/officials related with the case and also identify the source of information/evidence. CIC through their decisions in case Nos. CIC/OK/A/2008/01231AD dt.19.6.09, CIC/OK/A/2008/01216AD dt.18.6.09 and CIC/AD/C/2009/001502 dt.20.1.10 has upheld the denial of information u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, it appears that the applicant is interested to get the said information for buttressing his disciplinary cases and there is no evidence of public interest in the information asked. The PIO further added in his rejoinder that "Since the Major Penalty case against three Charged Officials including the applicant are pending, the information asked for by the applicant is also exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
6. During the hearing the Respondent reiterated his contentions as given in the rejoinder. He stated that the DA&R case at this point of time is with the competent authority who would be taking a decision on the nature of penalty to be imposed upon the Appellant and that providing all the information at this stage will impede the process of prosecution as the Appellant will be in a position to influence the outcome of the decision by exerting influence on the competent authority. He added that the Appellant may also use the information for delaying the decision making process. According to the Respondent all the documents being relied upon by the competent authority to decide the matter have already been provided to the Appellant. The Appellant on the other hand relied on Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/000512/3164 dt.11.5.09, in the case of another Appellant, which allowed the appeal. The Appellant also pleaded for the information as the same is required by him for defending himself.
7. The Commission on careful consideration of the submissions by both sides as also on perusal of submissions on record noted that in the instant case the DA&R proceedings are at the final stage whereas in the case quoted by the Appellant the DR proceedings had not been initiated. The situations are different. Also copies of all the documents being relied upon by the Competent Authority have already been furnished to the Appellant. The Commission is of the opinion that disclosure of any information at this stage will impede the process of prosecution since the Appellant may use the information to influence the decision making by exerting unwarranted pressure on the Competent Authority . The Commission, with the observations given hereinabove, denies the information to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act . The Commission also strongly recommends that the final decision on penalty be taken by the Competent Authority within the next two months and complete information be provided to the Appellant as soon as the decision is taken.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of (Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri J.C.Parihar P70, PBlock Wodehouse Road Colaba Mumbai 400 005
2. The PIO Ministry of Railways O/o Jt. Secretary (G) & CPIO Railway Board Rail Bhavan New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority Ministry of Railways O/o Advisor (Staff) Railway Board Rail Bhavan New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC