Central Information Commission
Janamejay Shukla vs Csir Hqrs.,New Delhi on 13 August, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/CSIRD/A/2019/658674
In the matter of:
Janamejay Shukla
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/05/2019 CPIO replied on : 01/07/2019 First appeal filed on : 04/07/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 23/08/2019 Second Appeal dated : 20/11/2019 Date of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date of Decision : 12/08/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Rajiv Sharma, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, Harish Kerketta, ASO Vigilance, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information/documents:
1. Provide the information about the inquiry committees that investigated the PGRPE QHS batches of 2009, 2010 and 2011 including their absorption to Scientist Position.
2. Provide certified copies of inquiry reports of the said committees.
3. Provide details of action taken on the said reports by the competent authority.
4. And other related information.1
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal. He submitted that he was a scientist and the Vigilance report hiding the name of third parties should be given to him.
He relied on the CIC decision in the case of Lalit Kumar Jha vs Central Vigilance Commission (CIC/SM/A/2011/000249/SG/12387) the relevant paras are extracted below:
"Denial of a citizen's fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation cannot be used to deny citizens' rights. Most investigations and investigators in the country appear to take an enormous amount of time to decide or conclude anything. The Respondent admits that CVC's guidelines for completing all investigations is three months. In the instant case, it is admitted that over 18 months have elapsed. If investigating agencies in the country were to diligently enforce the timelines laid down, they would not have to resort to Section 8(1)(h) to refuse information. In view of this, the Commission does not accept the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act."
He also relied on the CIC decision in case no. CIC/SG/A/2011/002890/16554, the relevant paras are extracted below:
"From her own admission the incidents occurred in 2003 and 2005 and if an investigation is carried on for decades this cannot be a ground to refuse the information. The Commission therefore does not accept the claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(h)."
He argued that on the grounds mentioned above the reply of the CPIO is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it deserve to be set aside. An urgent interference from CIC is required for disclosure of the information in order to avoid further damage to the applicant and similarly placed other Trainee Scientists. Also, the disclosure related to marathon investigation of more than 2 6 years can decide about 2009 and 2010 illegal recruits who are holding public office without having legal right to do so.
The CPIO submitted that the enquiry is now over and the outcome is that displeasure of the President was conveyed to three CSIR employees and as the same relates to performance of the individuals, the same again stands exempted.
Observations:
The CPIO vide letter dated 01.07.2019 replied that the information sought at points no. 1 to 5 is related to induction of PGRPE Scientist in CSIR and the matter is under investigation. Hence, providing information at this stage before attaining its finality may lead to a wrong conclusion, which may impede the process of investigation, besides the name and designation of the officers involved in the investigation or decision making will be revealed publicly. Further, premature disclosure of decision on the investigation related information of the complaint even before its acceptance or its rejection by competent authority will expose that authority to competing pressures which may compromise objectivity of decision making. Therefore, the information sought is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The FAA also reiterated the CPIO's reply in his order dated 23.08.2019. The Commission finds no flaw in the CPIO's reply and moreover, the appellant had informed during the hearing that he is not one among the three Scientists to whom displeasure was conveyed. Therefore, the information denied by the CPIO at that point of time u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was justified. Moreover, the decision relied upon by the appellant cannot be applied in parity with this case, as presently also the stand taken by the CPIO is that the Scientist(s) to whom displeasure was conveyed are third parties.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter and accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचना आयु!) Information Commissioner (सू 3 Authenticated true copy अिभ$मा%णत स(या)पत $ित) (अिभ$मा%णत $ित ऐ.के. असीजा) A.K. Assija (ऐ असीजा Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4