Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.) ... on 2 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos: CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219
Ajay Kumar Gupta .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Addl. DGIT
(Vig.), North Zone, Room No.
100, Dayal Singh Library, Deen
Dayal Updadhyay Marg, New
Delhi - 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026
Date of Decision : 24.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The Appellant filed the above-mentioned Second appeals against the above
CPIO, with respect to two RTI applications seeking information on the similar
issue. Therefore, all three cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal,
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
File Nos: CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219
Page 1 of 17
RTI application filed on : 11.07.2024
CPIO replied on : 14.08.2024
First appeal filed on : 22.08.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.09.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"This pertains to The DDIT (Vig.)-II(I) New Delhi, Office of the Directorate of Income Tax (Vigilance), North Zone and Deputy CVO of CBDT, 2nd Floor, Dyal Singh Public Library Building, 1 Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi regarding Complaint against Office of the Investigation Unit-4, New Delhi in the TEP Case of M/s. Delta Factors India Pvt. Ltd. - FCRR- 131/21 being investigated on the complaint of the undersigned applicant. This further pertains to the letters dated 15.06.2024 and 24.06.2024 duly delivered to your office (copy of the cover page of the letters are enclosed for ready reference). The following information is sought as per your records:
1. Details of the Diary Entry No./Inward mail entry details of the enclosed Letters dated 15.06.2024 and 24.06.2024 is sought as per records
2.Please provide details of the Action Taken on the letter dated 15.06.2024 as per records
3. Please provide details of the Action Taken on the letter dated 24.06.2024 as per records
4. Incase the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report duly SIGNED BY THE Competent Authority with all annexures is sought as per your records.
5. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department/authority/Govt. Office, copy of the forwarding note with the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the complaint further is sought.
6. Copy of all notices issued in the said Complaint is sought as per records CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 2 of 17
7. Copy of all Responses received in the said Complaint is sought as per records
8. Details of DATES of all notices issued / Responses received in the said Complaint is sought as per records
9. Please provide present status of the complaint as per records"
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 14.08.2024 stating as under:
"1. Diary number 140 dated 0/0 08.07.2024 in the ADG(Vigilance), North Zone, New Delhi.
2. As per provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, Act, 2005 there shall be no obligation to give any information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the disclosure of such information:
3. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
4. Enquiry proceedings have been concluded.
5. Not Applicable
6. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
7. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
8. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
9. Enquiry proceedings have been concluded.."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 18.09.2024, held as under:
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 3 of 17 "The CPIO while deciding the application, addressed point-wise queries raised by the applicant and denied the complete information as pointed hereunder:
Point No 1, 5, 9 of RTI application.
Information is provided to the applicant.
Point No 4 of RTI application.
As per the applicant insufficient information was provided. Point No 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8 of RTI application.
Information was denied in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, the first appeal has been filed with undersigned with a request to provide the complete sought information as per provisions of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, the appeal is decided on merit basis as detailed below.
On perusal of the record and point-wise replies submitted by the CPIO while addressing Point No 4 to the RTI application dated 11.07.2024, it appears that the CPIO furnished the status of the proceedings as 'concluded' as sought by the applicant. The Closure Report which contains personal information and third party information was not provided by the CPIO taking recourse of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
With respect to the point no. 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8, queries largely related to obtain information/status of action taken and the processing/investigation in respect of letter dated 15.06.2024 and 24.06.2024.
3. In this connection, it may be noted that the kind of information which has been requested is similar to what has been decided in the landmark judgment dated 3 October 2012 in the Girish R Deshpande v. CIC SLP(Civil) No 27734 of 2012 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that action taken in the disciplinary proceedings is personal information and cannot be disclosed to the 3 party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner le copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 4 of 17 are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which foll under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual.
The ratio-decidendi of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents related to disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. Thus, by parity of reasoning, the enquiry report being third party information is not privy to disclosure as specified in Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005
4. Vide CVC circular No. CVC/RTI/Misc/10/002 dated 04.04.2013, available on public domain, attention has been drawn to the judgment/order dated 6.11.2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of U.P.S.C v. R.K. Jain in which the issue of disclosure of information pertaining to vigilance/disciplinary proceedings has been considered by the High Court. The Hon'ble Court in its judgment had observed that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Besides, the Hon'ble Court also reiterated that section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information' from disclosure; irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought. The order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court was subsequently assailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Further, the DOPT in an O.M dated 14.08.2013, available on public domain has reiterated the above principles and has stated that information about the complaints made against the officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 5 of 17
6. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid Judgment orders of the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Hon'ble High Court, the circulars of DOPT and CVC and various decisions of the learned CIC in several cases, the decision of the CPIO not to disclose certain information is found in order.
7. Further, the appellant in this first appeal stated that the CPIO failed to consider the proviso of the Section 8(1) that states that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person. In this regard, the following arguments should be considered to differentiate between the Parliament and an Individual:-
7.1. Distinction between Access by Parliament and Public Access Argument: The access to information by Parliament and individual RTI requests operate under different frameworks and principles.
Parliamentary Privileges: Parliament, as a legislative body, has its own mechanisms and privileges for accessing information. This is based on its role in oversight and legislative functions. The scope and manner of information access for parliamentary purposes are distinct from the individual rights under the RTI Act.
Purpose and Use: The information sought by Parliament often pertains to legislative oversight, policy formulation, or national security, which might not be directly comparable to individual requests under the RTI Act.
7.2. Specific Exemptions Under RTI Act Argument: The RTI Act has specific exemptions under Section 8 and Section 9, which are applicable to protect certain types of information from disclosure.
Personal Privacy: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal information if its disclosure would lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. This is a specific provision designed to protect personal data, regardless of the requesting party's identity.
Public Interest Test: The RTI Act balances transparency with privacy and other concerns through a public interest test. If disclosing the information would not serve a significant public interest, it may be exempted under the Act.
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 6 of 17 7.3. Nature of the Information Argument: The nature of the information requested under the RTI Act might differ significantly from information accessed by Parliament.
Sensitive Information: Some information might be sensitive or confidential, and its disclosure could impact personal privacy or security. Such considerations are crucial when evaluating RTI requests. Context of the Request: The context and specifics of individual RTI requests might differ from parliamentary inquiries, making the comparison less straightforward.
7.4. Legal Precedents and Interpretations Argument: Reference relevant Supreme Court judgments that underscore the distinction between RTI requests and parliamentary access.
K.P. Sharma v. State of Haryana (2014): Emphasize that personal information and disciplinary details are exempt under RTI if they do not relate to public interest, regardless of the requesting entity.
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): Highlight that personal information, even related to public officials or sensitive subjects, may be exempt if disclosure does not serve significant public interest.
7.5. RTI Act's Intent and Purpose Argument: The RTI Act was designed to promote transparency and accountability while respecting privacy and confidentiality.
Balancing Act: The RTI Act balances the right to information with privacy concerns and other exemptions. It provides a framework to ensure that the public interest is protected while safeguarding personal data.
Scope of Disclosure: The Act does not mandate absolute transparency; rather, it promotes access to information with certain limitations to protect privacy, security, and other sensitive concerns.
7.6. Procedural Safeguards and Discretion Argument: The RTI Act provides the Appellate Authority with discretion to evaluate the relevance and impact of disclosing information.
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 7 of 17 Discretionary Powers: As an Appellate Authority, you have the discretion to assess whether the information in question should be disclosed based on the criteria set out in the RTI Act.
Evaluation of Impact: Consider the potential impact of disclosure on privacy and public interest, and make a decision that aligns with the principles of the RTI Act."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 14.08.2024 First appeal filed on : 23.08.2024 First Appellate Authority's order : 23.09.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.09.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:
"This pertains to The DDIT (Vig.)-II(I) New Delhi, Office of the Directorate of Income Tax (Vigilance), North Zone and Deputy CVO of CBDT, 2nd Floor, Dyal Singh Public Library Building, 1 Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi regarding Reminder 25 dated 05.01.2024 sent by the complainant (the applicant herein) by Speed Post with regard to Complaint File No. PSRB-17/20 (Copy of Reminder 25 enclosed) duly RECEIVED BY your office. The following information is sought as per your records:
1. Details of the Diary Entry No./Inward mail entry details of the enclosed Reminder 25 at your office is sought as per records CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 8 of 17
2. Please provide details of the Action Taken on the subject complaint as per records
3. Incase the complaint has been closed, copy of the closure report duly SIGNED BY THE Competent Authority with all annexures is sought as per your records.
4. If the complaint has been forwarded to another department/authority/Govt. Office, copy of the forwarding note with the details of the outgoing post no. and date to track the complaint further is sought.
5. Copy of all notices issued in the said Complaint is sought as per records
6. Copy of all Responses received in the said Complaint is sought as per records
7. Details of DATES of all notices issued / Responses received in the said Complaint is sought as per records
8. Please provide present status of the complaint as per records"
6. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 14.08.2024 stating as under:
"1. Diary number 140 dated 0/0 08.07.2024 in the ADG(Vigilance), North Zone, New Delhi.
2. As per provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, Act, 2005 there shall be no obligation to give any information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the disclosure of such information:
3. Enquiry proceedings have been concluded.
4. Not Applicable CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 9 of 17
5. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
6. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
7. Reply as per point no. (ii) above.
8. Enquiry proceedings have been concluded."
7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.08.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.09.2024, held as under:
"The CPIO while deciding the application, addressed point-wise queries raised by the applicant and denied the complete information as pointed hereunder:
Point No 1, 4 & 8 of RTI application.
Information is provided to the applicant.
Point No 3 of RTI application.
As per the applicant insufficient information was provided.
Point No 2, 5, 6 & 7 of RTI application.
Information was denied in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, the first appeal has been filed with undersigned with a request to provide the complete sought information as per provisions of the Act. Keeping in view of the above, the appeal is decided on merit basis as detailed below.
2.1 On perusal of the record and point-wise replies submitted by the CPIO while addressing Point No 3 to the RTI application, it appears that the CPIO furnished the status of the proceedings as 'concluded as sought by the applicant. The Closure Report which contains personal information and third-party information was not provided by the CPIO taking recourse of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. With respect to the point no. 2, 5, 6, & 7. queries largely related to obtain information/status of action taken and the processing/investigation in respect of complaint.
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 10 of 17
3. In this connection, it may be noted that the kind of information which has been requested is similar to what has been decided in the landmark judgment dated 3rd October 2012 in the Girish R Deshpande v. CIC SLP(Civil) No 27734 of 2012 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that action taken in the disciplinary proceedings is personal information and cannot be disclosed to the 3rd party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner Le. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual."
The ratio-decidendi of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents related to disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. Thus, by parity of reasoning, the enquiry report being third party information is not privy to disclosure as specified in Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005
4. Vide CVC circular No. CVC/RTI/Misc/10/002 dated 04.04.2013, available on public domain, attention has been drawn to the judgment/order dated 6.11.2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of U.P.S.C v. R.K. Jain in which the issue of disclosure of information pertaining to vigilance/disciplinary proceedings has been considered by the High Court. The Hon'ble Court in its judgment had observed that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Besides, the Hon'ble Court also reiterated that section 8(1)(j) exempts 'personal CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 11 of 17 information' from disclosure; irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought. The order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court was subsequently assailed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Further, the DOPT in an O.M dated 14.08.2013, available on public domain has reiterated the above principles and has stated that information about the complaints made against the officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid Judgment orders of the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Hon'ble High Court, the circulars of DOPT and CVC and various decisions of the learned CIC in several cases, the decision of the CPIO not to disclose certain information is found in order.
7. Further, the appellant in this first appeal stated that the CPIO failed to consider the proviso of the Section 8(1) that states that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person. In this regards, the following arguments should be considered to differentiate between the Parliament and an Individual:-
7.1. Distinction between Access by Parliament and Public Access Argument: The access to information by Parliament and individual RTI requests operate under different frameworks and principles.
Parliamentary Privileges: Parliament, as a legislative body, has its own mechanisms and privileges for accessing information. This is based on its role in oversight and legislative functions. The scope and manner of information access for parliamentary purposes are distinct from the individual rights under the RTI Act.
Purpose and Use: The information sought by Parliament often pertains to legislative oversight, policy formulation, or national security, which might not be directly comparable to individual requests under the RTI Act.
7.2. Specific Exemptions Under RTI Act Argument: The RTI Act has specific exemptions under Section 8 and Section 9, which are applicable to protect certain types of information from disclosure.
Personal Privacy: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts personal information if its disclosure would lead to an unwarranted invasion of CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 12 of 17 privacy. This is a specific provision designed to protect personal data, regardless of the requesting party's identity. Public Interest Test: The RTI Act balances transparency with privacy and other concerns through a public interest test. If disclosing the information would not serve a significant public interest, it may be exempted under the Act.
7.3. Nature of the Information Argument: The nature of the information requested under the RTI Act might differ significantly from information accessed by Parliament. Sensitive Information: Some information might be sensitive or confidential, and its disclosure could impact personal privacy or security. Such considerations are crucial when evaluating RTI requests. Context of the Request: The context and specifics of individual RTI requests might differ from parliamentary inquiries, making the comparison less straightforward.
7.4. Legal Precedents and Interpretations Argument: Reference relevant Supreme Court judgments that underscore the distinction between RTI requests and parliamentary access. K.P. Sharma v. State of Haryana (2014): Emphasize that personal information and disciplinary details are exempt under RTI if they do not relate to public interest, regardless of the requesting entity. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): Highlight that personal information, even related to public officials or sensitive subjects, may be exempt if disclosure does not serve significant public interest.
7.5. RTI Act's Intent and Purpose Argument: The RTI Act was designed to promote transparency and accountability while respecting privacy and confidentiality. Balancing Act: The RTI Act balances the right to information with privacy concerns and other exemptions. It provides a framework to ensure that the public interest is protected while safeguarding personal data. Scope of Disclosure: The Act does not mandate absolute transparency; rather, it promotes access to information with certain limitations to protect privacy, security, and other sensitive concerns.
7.6. Procedural Safeguards and Discretion Argument: The RTI Act provides the Appellate Authority with discretion to evaluate the relevance and impact of disclosing information.
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 13 of 17 Discretionary Powers: As an Appellate Authority, you have the discretion to assess whether the information in question should be disclosed based on the criteria set out in the RTI Act.
Evaluation of Impact: Consider the potential impact of disclosure on privacy and public interest, and make a decision that aligns with the principles of the RTI Act."
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Manas Tripathi, appeared in person on behalf of the Appellant.
Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav, Income Tax Officer/CPIO, appeared in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 23.09.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the RTI applications were filed to ascertain the action taken on his TEP complaint involving allegations of corruption against the concerned Investigation Unit. It was contended that the complaint was closed without associating the Appellant and without furnishing the closure report or relevant records, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and transparency. The Appellant argued that the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) was unjustified since the matter pertained to allegations of corruption and thus involved larger public interest. He further submitted that non-disclosure of the closure note-sheet and related documents prevents him from examining the basis of closure and effectively pursuing appropriate judicial remedies, if required.
CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 14 of 17
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise replies had been furnished in accordance with the RTI Act and that the complaint filed by the Appellant was duly examined at various levels, including by the competent authority, and was ultimately closed on merits as no vigilance angle was found. During the hearing, the Respondent also produced the relevant factual report and closure note-sheet pertaining to the investigation conducted on the Appellant's complaint, which formed the basis of closure of the vigilance angle.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the Appellant's representative submitted that the TEP complaint filed by the Appellant involved serious allegations of corruption and that the same was closed without associating the Appellant or providing him any substantive record of the closure. It was contended that denial of the closure report and related records has the effect of depriving the Appellant of meaningful recourse, including infringement of his right to seek appropriate judicial remedy.
10. The Commission observes that the matter pertains to allegations of corruption raised by the Appellant and the consequent vigilance examination thereof. In such matters, transparency to a reasonable extent is warranted so that the complainant is aware of the outcome and is not precluded from availing appropriate legal remedies. At the same time, the records may contain personal details, third-party information or internal deliberations which are required to be protected under the exemptions of the RTI Act.
11. In the considered view of the Commission, disclosure of the closure note-sheet relating to the investigating officer, as relied upon by the Respondent during the hearing, would meet the ends of transparency and fairness, particularly since the said document forms the basis of concluding that no vigilance angle was involved. The Commission is of the view that providing such document, after severing any exempt portions, would not prejudice any protected interests while enabling the Appellant to understand the basis of closure and, if so advised, seek judicial remedy. The Appellant's CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 15 of 17 right to seek appropriate judicial recourse cannot be curtailed by denial of the foundational record relating to closure of the complaint.
12. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to provide to the Appellant a copy of the closure note-sheet/report relating to the investigating officer who examined the Appellant's complaint, as submitted before the Commission during the hearing. While doing so, the Respondent may invoke the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act to suitably sever/redact any portions containing personal information, third-party details or other exempt material, strictly in accordance with the Act, and furnish the remaining information within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
13. With regard to the remaining points of the RTI applications, the Commission finds that the replies furnished by the Respondent are appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and therefore warrant no further intervention.
14. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Sd/-
(S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Office of the Addl. DGIT (Vig.), North Zone, Room No. 100, Dayal Singh Library, Deen Dayal Updadhyay Marg, New Delhi - 110002 CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 16 of 17 CIC/DGITV/A/2024/642522 and CIC/DGITD/A/2024/643219 Page 17 of 17 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)