Central Information Commission
O P Tanwar vs Railway Board on 2 July, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/RAILB/A/2017/175778
O P Tanwar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, M/O. Railways, West ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Central Railway, Jabalpur.
2. CPIO, M/o Railways, Railway
Board, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01-05-2017 FA : 26-07-2017 SA: 13-11-2017
CPIO : 17-07-2017 FAO : 01-09-2017 Hearing: 01-07-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, West Central Railway, Jabalpur seeking following information:-
"A. Documents during 2nd stage advice.
1. The copy of the all noting and comments of Advisor Vigilance at the time when case was referred to him by ME before issue of this Major penalty charge memorandum.
2. The copy of all noting and comments by vigilance officials from CVI level to SDGM/WCR level on the inquiry report submitted by inquiry Officer, Shri R. K. Jain.Page 1 of 5
3. The copy of all noting and comments of various officials in the Railway Board on the inquiry report of Shri R. K. Jain.
4. The copy of all noting and comments of various officials in the CVC during 2nd stage advice in this case.
5- The copy of all noting including speaking orders and provisional decision of ME, Railway board.
B. Documents during 1st stage advice.
1. The copy of all noting and comments by vigilance officials from CVI level to SDGM/WCR level during investigation.
2. The copy of GM/WCR's decision forwarded to Railway Board after investigation.
3. The copy of vigilance investigation report including draft charge sheet submitted to Railway board 4- The copy of all noting and comments by all level vigilance officials in Railway Board.
5. The copy of all noting and comments by ME in Railway Board at the time of forwarding the case to the CVC.
6. The copy of all noting and comments by all level vigilance officials in Railway Board.
7. The copy of all noting and comments by ME and Advisor/Vigilance Railway Board after 1st stage advice from CVC."
2. The CPIO responded on 17-07-2017. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 26-07-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 01-09-2017. 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 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. O P Tanwar attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. S. B. Patilal, Dy. CVO, Mr. SMA Razi, Director, Vigilance(T), Mr. R. C. Pandey, Dy. Director and Mr. Rohtash Kumar, Ch. OS participated in the hearing representing the respondent(s) through video conferencing/in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent(s) should be directed to provide him the copies of the file notings of the vigilance officials.
5. The respondent(s) informed the Commission that the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. O P Tanwar have been concluded. Further, they stated that the vigilance file of the appellant cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby Page 2 of 5 came within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, they referred to an earlier decision of the Commission in case no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the reliance was placed by the Commission upon the decision of Shri K. L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi in CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009. Decision:
6. This Commission observed that the disclosure of the file notings of the vigilance officials to the appellant would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated with the completion of the said proceedings. This Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission which has been relied upon by the respondent(s) i.e. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
"6...In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."
7. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that furnishing of the copies of the file notings of the vigilance officials may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also to be noted that the necessary documents as Page 3 of 5 required to be given under the department/vigilance rules have already been provided to the appellant. Hence, copy of the file notings of the vigilance officials cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the respondent no. 1 is directed to communicate to the appellant only the outcome of the advice after redacting the name and designation of the concerned officers, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 01-07-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/o. RAILWAYS, DGM & PIO, GENERAL ADMIN.,
(RTI CELL), WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY,
GM'S OFFICE, (HQ), JABALPUR, M.P.-482001
2. THE CPIO M/o. RAILWAYS, DD(PG) & CPIO,
REGISTRATION & CO-ORDINATION, (RTI CELL),
(RAILWAY BOARD), ROOM No. -5, (GF),
RAIL BHAVAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2. Mr. O P TANWAR Page 5 of 5