Central Information Commission
Devender vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 30 August, 2024
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/CBSED/A/2023/652159 +
CIC/CBSED/A/2023/645260 +
CIC/CBSED/A/2023/644205 +
CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636782 +
CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636779 +
CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636761
Devender ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Central Board of Secondary Education, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's Reply First FAA's Second
No. Appeal Order Appeal
1. 652159 24.07.2023 23.08.2023 21.09.2023 20.10.2023 18.11.2023
2. 645260 08.06.2023 07.07.2023 22.07.2023 01.09.2023 18.09.2023
3. 644205 08.06.2023 07.07.2023 19.07.2023 17.08.2023 11.09.2023
4. 636782 11.05.2023 09.06.2023 15.06.2023 12.07.2023 28.07.2023
5. 636779 11.05.2023 09.06.2023 14.06.2023 12.07.2023 28.07.2023
6. 636761 08.05.2023 07.06.2023 14.06.2023 12.07.2023 28.07.2023
Note: The above referred matters have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
the same subject matter and related RTI queries.
Date of Hearing: 16.08.2024
Date of Decision: 29.08.2024
Page 1 of 26
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/652159
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"The complete notes and orders/file records of RTI files where my following RTI applications and their 1st appeals were dealt with, may therefore be given under RTI Act in prescribed time frame:
1. RTI Application CBSED/R/E/23/01350 dated 08.05.2023 and its 1st Appeal CBSED/A/E/ 23/00297 dated 14.06.2023;
2. RTI Application CBSED/R/E/23/01398 dated 11.05.2023 and its 1st Appeal CBSED/A/E/ 23/00298 dated 14.06.2023; and
3. RTI Application CBSED/R/E/23/01399 dated 11.05.2023 and its 1st Appeal CBSED/A/E/ 23/00302 dated 15.06.2023."
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply to these RTI applications and appeals have already been provided to the respective Applicant. The supply of copies of the notes of related RTI applications and appeals would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the officers/officials who dealt these RTI applications appeals. Disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it does not involve larger public interest."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 20.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 2 of 261.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.11.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/645260
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"1. Web link of duties and responsibility of each post of the Board which are required to be mandatorily disclosed in public domain on the website under Section- 4(1)(b) of RTI Act-2005 under tab the powers and duties of its officers and employees.
2. Report of the duly constituted Committee constituted by the Competent Authority for updation and compilation of CBSE Service Rules 1985;
3. Notes and orders with regard to approval of Competent Authority for updation and compilation of CBSE Service Rules 1985;
4. Copy of Agenda Item number 15 placed in Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014;
5. Duties and responsibilities as approved by Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014 and ratified by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 06.08.2014;
6. Notes and orders with regard to approval of Competent Authority for printing of updated CBSE Service Rules 1985 after its approval by Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014 and ratification by Governing Body in its meeting held on 06.04.2014; and
7. Copy of rule position with regard to issue of notification after the approval of Governing Body of the Board.Page 3 of 26
8. Copy of Action Taken report on issuance of Duties and responsibilities as approved by Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014 and ratified by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 06.08.2014.
9. Copy of duties and Responsibilities of post of Assistant Vigilance Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary in the Board which is also part of proactive/ suo moto disclosure under provisions of the RTI Act..." etc. 2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1: The Key Functionaries Powers & duties & Responsibilities are already upload on the Board's website under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act 2005.
Kindly visit link as under.
https://www.cbse.gov.in/cbsenew/rti.html 2-3: Question is not specific and clear period and year under question required to trace out the specific information. Therefore, not able to furnish desired information.
4: Please find attached a copy of letter dated 21.11.2017 send to the O/o Inspection Officer, Director General of Audit New Delhi. wherein it was informed that the proposed amendment has not been revised by incorporating the latest decisions/amendment after June, 2011. (copy of note Sheet enclosed).
Due to other pending/suggestion in the Service Rule - 1985 & approval thereof:5: Please refer point No. 04
6-7: Question is not specific and clear to be answered.8: Please refer point No. 04
9: Please find enclosed the copy of duties and responsibilities of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary as available."Page 4 of 26
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 01.09.2023 stated that:
"1: Available information has already been provided.
2: As rule 2(f) of RTI Act only the documents which are available in material form is to be supplied under RTI Act. The document sought by the applicant is not available in material form.
3: Copy of Note dated 26.03.2014 is enclosed.
4-5: Copy of agenda Item is enclosed.
6: Copy of note dated 20.11.2014.
7: As tule 2(f) of RTI Act only the documents which are available in material form is to be supplied under RTI Act. The document sought by the applicant is not available in material form.
8: (i) Copy of note dated 20.11.2014
(ii) Copy of note dated 30.07.2018.
9: Please find attached detailed advertisement published on the CBSE website for recruitment post of Assistant Vigilance Officer and other post, the same is contained the eligibility conditions and other aspect of appointment of the post. (copy enclosed) For other posts information has already been supplied"
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.09.2023 Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/644205
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:Page 5 of 26
1. "The complete copies of Notes and orders and supporting documents/ records wherein such proposals/recommendations were made and the Competent Authority/ Disciplinary Authority decided for issue of seeking explanation and issue of Article of Charge to the undersigned in confirmation matter of Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary.
2. The complete copies of Notes and orders and supporting documents/ records wherein the proposals/ recommendations were made and the Competent Authority/ Disciplinary Authority decided to exempt seeking of explanation and issue Article of Charge to the others officials / officers who dealt with / decided matter appointment, pay fixation, release of pay on impugned joining and confirmation in r/o Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary.
3. The complete copies of Notes and orders and supporting documents/ records wherein the proposals/ recommendations were made on complaints received on subject matter from undersigned and the Competent Authority/ Disciplinary Authority decided to exempt seeking of explanation and issue Article of Charge to the others officials / officers who dealt with / decided matter appointment, pay fixation, release of pay on impugned joining and confirmation in r/o Smt Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary."
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1-2: The notesheets/documents wherein competent authority considered initiation of disciplinary proceedings as a composite case, against the various officers and officials of the Board in the matter of alleged irregularities in appointment, joining and confirmation of Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary on direct recruitment basis, for their alleged delinquencies, contains the personal information of many officers and officials who were involved in these processes and further leading to initiation of departmental disciplinary cases against them. Disclosure of such documents is exempted under Rule 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Page 6 of 26 order dated 06.11.2012 in LPA No. 618/2012 in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain by observing that the information relating to disciplinary action against a person is personal information and the same is exempted from disclosure, as it is the personal information of the person against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated/in progress/concluded. The CVC vide their letter No. CVC/RTI/Misc./10/002 dated 04.04.2013 directed all the CVOs to take note of the above Court order dated 06.11.2012, while dealing and deciding the RTI applications and appeals.
3: The information sought by the Applicant is non specific."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 17.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.09.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636782
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "The copy of complete notes, orders & correspondence of the file under RTI Act wherein the above-mentioned complaint(s) were processed and orders of Competent Authorities have been obtained after suitably severing third party information/ exempted information, if any.
2. The copy of Govt. of India rules and guidelines of the CVC may be given which permit such proposal/ decision of a. suppressing the abovesaid complaint(s) or/and inaction on abovesaid complaints b. endorsing no reply to the complainant on abovesaid complaint(s)."
4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-Page 7 of 26
1. The letter dated 28.02.2022 and 08.12.2022 of the Applicant are the reminders to his earlier representation dated 24.09.2021 In response to RTI application dated 03.03.2022 (Case No. CBSED/R/E/22/00560), the Applicant has already been informed vide letter No. CBSE/Vig./F.13582/RTI-
IX/CaseNo.00560/2022/C-1288-1230 dated 01.04.2022 that the submissions made by the Applicant in his representation dated 24.09.2021 had been considered by the Chairman. CBSE and he recorded that the enquiry in process, should take its course. It is evident that wrong facts were placed by the complainants before senior officers.
2. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, only the information available in the material form is to be supplied. The information sought by the Applicant is not available in the material form.
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636779
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "The copy of noting, correspondence portion and enclosures of the file wherein 1st and /or 2nd stage advice from the CVC was obtained by the vigilance unit of the CBSE in r/o undersigned and decision was materialized, after suitably severing third party information/ exempted information, if any.
2. The copy of rule under which the CVC 1st stage advice papers were not provided to me till date along with copy of notes and orders/documents where proposal/decision Page 8 of 26 for the same was materialized vis-a-vis Govt. rules and guidelines of the CVC reflected in its letter dated 28.09.2000.
3. The copy of rule under which the CVC 2nd stage advice was not obtained and/or advice/ its papers were bypassed and/or not given to me till date along with copy of notes and orders/documents where proposal/decision for the same was materialized vis-a-vis Govt. rules and guidelines of the CVC reflected in its letter dated 28.09.2000."
5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The Applicant in his representation dated 08.12.2022, in departmental disciplinary case inter alia requested to provide the copies of the (i) Copy of records of consultation with CVC on both stages, (ii) Copy of first stage advice of CVC & (iii) Copy of second stage advice of CVC by giving reference of CVC letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.09.2000.
In reply to it, the Applicant in the above case was informed vide letter No. CBSE/Vig./F.15013(V1)/2022/C-1956 dated 24.02.2023 that CVC letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.09.2000 referred by him, only the copy of the first stage advice tendered by CVC, to be supplied to the Charged Officer and therefore, a copy of the first stage advice tendered by CVC in the matter vide OM No. 01/EDN/028/483844 dated 09.06.2021 was supplied to him alongwith said letter dated 24.02.2023 and this advice dated 09.06.2021 contained one page advice of CV In the departmental disciplinary case, the Applicant has already been informed through above letter dated 24.02.2023 that the referred CVC letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.09.2000 only provides to supply the first stage advice of CVC which has been provided to him.
It is informed that the first stage advice consultation documents/decisions included vigilance report and personal information of many officers and officials in respect of whom the first stage advice of CVC was sought related to initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings under relevant rules of the Board.Page 9 of 26
The supply of copies of these documents and notesheets relating to first stage advice consultation with CVC for initiating disciplinary proceedings against various officers and officials of the Board as a composite case, for their alleged delinquency contains the personal information of many officers and officials. Disclosure of such document is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.11.2012 in LPA No. 618/2012 in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K Jain, by observing that the information relating to disciplinary action against a person is personal information and the same is exempted from disclosure as it is the personal information of the person against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated/in progress/ concluded. The CVC vide their letter No. CVC/RTI/Misc/10/002. Dated 04.04.2013 directed all the CVOs to take note of the above Court order dated 06.11.2012 while dealing and deciding the RTI applications and appeals.
As per the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, only the information which is available in the material form is to be supplied. The information and documents sought by the Applicant is not available in the material form."
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636761
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Please provide me copy of notes and orders with correspondence portion of RTI file where the following RTI applications and their appeals were dealt including all notes and orders, inputs, documents etc. received from Vigilance Cell of CBSE:-Page 10 of 26
1. CBSED/R/E/22/01372
2. CBSED/R/E/22/01370
3. CBSED/R/E/22/00559
4. CBSED/R/E/22/00560
2. Please provide me copy of preliminary inquiry report of Shri R. K. Ojha which may contain observations in r/o CBSE officials and senior officers and undersigned in the matter of confirmation of Smt. Babita Rani as already provided to Shri Pawan Grover Section Officer, CBSE retired and Shri Gautam Day, Superintendent and other(s)."
6.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply to these RTI applications and appeals have already been provided to the respective Applicant. The supply of copies of the notes of related RTI Applications and appeals would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the officers/officials who dealt these RTI applications/appeals. Disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 as it does not involve larger public interest.
In reply to an earlier RTI application No. CBSED/R/E/22/01370 dated 13.05.2022 of the Applicant, it has already been replied to the Applicant vide letter No. CBSE/Vig/F.13582/RTI-IX/CaseNo.01370/2022/H-1467 To 1469 dated 10.06.2022 and as per the records available in the office, the Applicant did not submit first appeal against the said reply dated 10.06.2022:-
"The Applicant is informed that there is an ongoing investigation by CBI in the subject.
The information/document sought by the Applicant is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it would impede the ongoing investigation. The Applicant is further informed that as per the available records, no preliminary enquiry specifically conducted by CBSE regarding confirmation case of Smt. Babita Rani in the post of Assistant Secretary."Page 11 of 26
The Applicant is informed that the information sought in the present RTI application is the repetition of earlier RTI application dated 13.05.2022.
It is informed that as per records, the preliminary enquiry report have been supplied to Shri Pawan Grover and Shri Goutam Dey as additional/defence document in the departmental disciplinary proceedings on the request of these two officials by the Inquiring Authority being a quasi-judicial authority. As per the records of the inquiry proceedings, the Applicant has not requested the Inquiring Authority to provide copy of this document as additional/defence document in his departmental disciplinary case.
It is further informed that a FIR No. RC2182020A002 dated 23.09.2020 has been filed by CBI office, New Delhi and investigation in the said FIR is in progress. Disclosure of this document is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as supply of this document may impede the process of investigation. This has already been intimated earlier to the Applicant."
6.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.07.2023.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
7. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Gulab Singh, US & CPIO along with Manoj Kumar, Asstt. Secretary Vigilance attended the hearing in person.
8. The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application(s) and alleged that he is being targeted by his senior officers who were bailed out, yet, he is not being even afforded an opportunity to defend his case properly as he strongly believes that the complete documents related to the vigilance case has not been provided to him. It was also alleged that whatever complaint(s) he has written to the Page 12 of 26 department has also remained unanswered till date, which is why he felt compelled to file these RTI Applications. For the sake of clarity, the Commission referred to the background of these cases stated in the second appeal memo in a common manner as under:
"Smt. Babita Rani, Head Assistant (Legal) and then Section Officer of CBSE was recruited to the post of Assistant Secretary in CBSE i.e. in the same department. The matters of her recruitment and joining time formalities were dealt with concerned officials/officers posted at the time of her recruitment and joining in the Recruitment Cell and Personnel Unit. The undersigned was not there and did not deal these matters at the time of her recruitment or joining. I was a Hindi cadre official i.e. a Junior Hindi Translator having no exposure or experience or training of the matters of recruitment, appointment, reservation or confirmation etc. But I was later on dragged to do out of cadre admn work of personnel files i.e. service matter of confirmation which I performed as per best of my knowledge being a Translator. But I have been burdened with charges on alleged irregularities of the time when she was Head Assistant, of the time of her recruitment as Assistant Secretary and her joining as Assistant Secretary when I was neither available there nor these matters were dealt with by me. Allegations regarding lapse in confirmation matter of Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary have been leveled against me whereas the matter was processed without any bias as per rules to the best of my knowledge. Moreover, double standards and discrimination was done in this case where a Hindi official was chosen to make scapegoat against alleged administrative lapse in the confirmation matter where the concerned Admin, Recruitment and Vigilance officers were left scot-free and senior officers of admin were freed from any questions as well, who dealt with the matter and bore more higher accountability in the matter of confirmation as compared to a Rajbhasha official like me even when I worked sincerely. The chargesheet has been issued to undersigned vide letter dated 14.07.2021, Inquiring Authority (IA) was appointed vide Order dated 8.11.2021, the undersigned submitted written brief on 17.07.2022, IA submitted its report on 03.08.2022 which was provided to me for comments on 28.11.2022 and the undersigned had submitted the comments on 05.04.2023. Thus, the enquiry stands completed but the decision of the Disciplinary Authority viz. Secretary, CBSE is awaited in the matter for the last more than Page 13 of 26 3 months and the applicant is bearing loss personally, financially and professionally without any wrongdoing whatsoever..."
Some case specific arguments are also taken on record in a case-wise manner emphasizing on the sum and substance of these appeal(s):
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/645260 "The Ministry of Education vide Resolution No. 209 dated 27 Feb,1962 has accorded the approval for revised Constitution of Central Board of Secondary Education w.e.f. 01.07.1962. Further, as per clause 16(J) of above said resolution, the Governing Body shall make the appointment of employees of the Board and decide the conditions of their services. Further, the Finance Committee of the Board in its meeting held on 31.07.2014 vide agenda item no 15 has approved the duties and responsibilities in r/o all the employees of the Board and the minutes of Finance Committee has also been ratified by Governing Body of the Board in its meeting held on 06-08-2014 and the new/amended/revised rules after updation and compilation of CBSE Service Rules 1985 on approval of Finance Committee/Governing Body in year 2014 have been utilized / implemented in different matters by the Board including compassionate appointments in the Board. Hence, it is a public document and is covered under disclosure under the RTI Act...."
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/644205 "1. The PIO & FAA here misused the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information under the RTI Act. Barring standing of PIO, the subject matter and aspects of Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.11.2012 in LPA No 618/2012 in case of Union Public Service Commission Vs R K Jain which have been quoted by the PIO for not giving information, are not contextual and not applicable to this case. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in above said matter has given its judgment related to third party information while relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande which held that :-
Page 14 of 26'13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. 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.'
2. The Hon'ble CIC vide its decision in case no CIC/AT/A/2009/000821 dated, 16.03.2010 has stated that 'an RTI-applicant can seek information not only pertaining to himself in investigation ⎯ ongoing or closed ⎯ but also against a third-party in a similar matter. The request will no-doubt be examined within the scope of the exemption-Sections of the RTI Act as well as Section 11(1) on account of its confidentiality, if any ― such as that arises from action by the public authority under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. But such information ⎯ third-party or otherwise ⎯ cannot be denied only on the ground that it was personal to an employee and that no public interest warranted its disclosure.' The Hon'ble Commissioner has also opined that 'whether looked at from the standpoint of Section 8(1)(h) (impeding the process of investigation) or Section 8(1)(j) (being a personal information to the other party), I do not see any difficulty in authorizing the disclosure of the requested information. I also factored into my analysis in this matter the fact that what the appellant is seeking is information regarding discharge of another officer in a common enquiry which was launched against that officer as well as the appellant. Appellant was not discharged. The canons of justice and prudence would, therefore, dictate that he be allowed access to the material which permitted the public authority to exonerate the third-party, Shri D.S. Sra, but to continue the investigation against the appellant.'
3. Further, the filing notings are also not exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. In CIC/CVCOM/A/2017/120855/SD P Praveen Kumar vs Central Vigilance Commission on 29 April, 2019, the Hon'ble CIC has held that "As regards Section 8(1)(j), there is no question that notings made in the files by government servants in discharge of their official functions is definitely a public activity and concerns the larger public interest. In the present case, Section 8(1)(j) was wrongly invoked by the CPIO and by the Appellate Authority to deny information to the Respondent." The Commission further directed the Page 15 of 26 CPIO to provide relevant and available information sought in the RTI Application with respect to the investigation held against the Appellant. It was stated that 'in doing so, CPIO is at liberty to obliterate (by way of blacking out or severance) the names, designations and identifying particulars of any other individual figuring in the records except that of the Appellant. This shall be done in consonance with the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act.'..."
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636782 As such, my complaints submitted through Single Window Cell no. 4180 & 4181 on 28-02-2022 and 24711 on 08-12-2022 were required to be processed by the concerned officer/ officials within stipulated period of time. But, no reply to complaints was given. No desired details have been provided under RTI Act. No details provided what action was taken against persons sitting tightly on these complaints/ grievances of public interest and dealing on the same clandestinely. Even it has not been informed whether these complaints were processed or not as no reply in normal procedures was received to me against any of these above complaints, which speaks clearly about wrong proposals/assessments and some wrong doing in the matter. Contextually, information sought by applicant was not on himself. Further, no enquiry is in process against the persons against whom complain/grievance was filed by the applicant as such no inquiry shall take its course. But, CPIO has only informed about the orders on old complaint/representation dated 24.09.2021 (notes and orders of which were also not provided), which was not demanded in this RTI Application under the RTI Act, 2005. So, effort was made by the PIO to divert and digress the issue instead of replying on desired information.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636779 c. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another, (1993) 1 SCC 13 has held the view that CVC recommendation prepared behind the back of the respondent without his participation and its non-supply was violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry" and that "Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself."
Page 16 of 26The Hon'ble CVC has also reviewed the matter vide letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28 09 2000 in light of above-said case State Bank of India Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another [Date of Judgement: 13.10.1992] and issued directions for supply of consultations made with CVC in the inquiry.
d. Moreover, it is a callously wrong posture that a copy of the first stage advice tendered by CVC in the matter vide OM No. 01/EDN/028/483844 dated 09.06.2021 was supplied to applicant along with said letter dated' 24.02,2023 and this advice dated 09 06.202 contained one page advice of CVC, because one page covering letter of the CVC provided by office gives no information or assessment or details of case presented to the CVC or assessment made by the CVC. It tantamounts to hide documents/records/assessment of office which were made behind the back of charged officer and sent to the CVC and the charged officer does not know which material was sent to the Disciplinary Authority, what was examined and relied, and on what material recommendations/consultations were made with CVC and on what basis the CVC issued one page letter, which infringes upon fair and just inquiry as well as principal of natural justice and hints the possibility of foul play/ one sided story presented before the Hon'ble CVC in the inquiry matter stripping of the charged officer to have his say/representation in the matter against assessment made against him.
e. Moreover, the applicant has already mentioned in the RTI Application itself that information may be given after suitably severing third party information/ exempted information, if any. So, desired information should have been provided by the PIO after severing the relevant information as per section 10 and 11 of the RTI Act instead of refusing the same on flimsy grounds. Hence, copy of noting, correspondence and its enclosures of the file wherein 1st and /or 2nd stage advice from the CVC was obtained, are crucial and required for the purpose of safeguarding the innocent and accountability of Govt. servants in a matter concerning public interest. The information sought is essential to bring forth the truth. The PIO cannot refuse discriminatory public records to hold back transparency only to shield some govt. servants/ hide the truth vis-à-vis matter concerning discharge of official functions in a public office."
Page 17 of 26Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636761 "The non-supply of importation information viz. copy of preliminary inquiry report of Shri R.K. Ojha which has already been provided to officials of the Board without obliteration/omitting of any of its details i.e. Shri Pawan Grover, Section Officer, CBSE retired and Shri Gautam Dey, Superintendent and other(s) by the Board during the investigation which the PIO has himself admitted, then how the same can be denied to me which was utmost requirement for representation of my defence against the departmental enquiry and non-consideration of submissions made by the applicant. But the provisions and very spirit of RTI Act has been assaulted by the PIO and FAA.
The desired complete information was not provided to me inspite of gravity of the matter in public interest which not only affects the applicant but also the larger public interest. The loss caused is incalculable in as much as it may set bad precedence on how to block information under RTI Act."
7. The Respondent while reiterating the replies provided to the RTI Application(s) under reference submitted that the cases are all interlinked and therefore they seek to place on record a common submission stating as under:
"It seems that the purpose of the Appellant is to get the notes and order, inputs, documents, etc. of the Vigilance Unit to identify the person who has processed/dealt the disciplinary case/other related matter of the Appellant and wants to know the proposal of the staff of the Vigilance Unit in the case.
It is humbly submitted that Shri Devender (Appellant) was chargesheeted on 14.07.2021 in a disciplinary proceedings case on the first stage advice of the CVC under major penalty proceedings as per CBSE Service Rules, 1985. Since then, the Appellant has probing eye on the Vigilance Unit of the Respondent organization after issue of chargesheet to him. He had been chargesheeted in confirmation case of Smt. Babita Rani, Ex-Assistant Secretary, CBSE. There is also an FIR case No. RC2182020A002 dated 23.09.2020 against ex-officers of CBSE including Smt. Babita Rani.Page 18 of 26
It is humbly submitted that disclosure of file noting/document of Vigilance Unit to the Appellant is potentially risky for the officers/officials who made noting in the Vigilance file in the disciplinary proceedings/other related matter of the Appellant. The protection needs to be provided to the officers/officials of sensitive Section as the Vigilance, in performing their duties.
It is humbly submitted that the identity of the officer/officials could be established by reference to the hierarchies through which the file passed as well as the handwriting in which the notes were recorded. So, applying Section 10(1) of RTI Act. 2005 and hiding the names of the authors of the file noting will not serve any purpose in the matter related to Vigilance Unit of the Respondent organization.
The file notings of the vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the Vigilance Unit and the officers/officials of Vigilance Unit should be protected in view of Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005.
It is humbly submitted that the Appellant is using RTI Act, 2005 to target the staff of Vigilance Unit of the Respondent organization. Please take the reference of the question No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 of his online RTI application No. CBSED/R/E/24/01907 dated 17.05.202'4 (copy attached at Annexure-1 for reference).
Question No. (3):- The noting and remarks of vigilance unit staff on his above-said complaint dated 06.03.2024.
Question No. (4):- The number of departmental inquiries initiated and closed/completed by the vigilance unit CBSE since the date of initiation of departmental inquiry against him.
Question No. (5):- Action taken against the vigilance officials/officers/ concerned officials under clause 7.2.1, 7.3iv and 7.3 xviii of CBSE Service Rules 1985, who kept his submissions and departmental inquiry pending for indefinite period in violation of the directives of the Central Vigilance Commission and GOI rules.Page 19 of 26
Question No. (6):- Posting in vigilance wings/Departments are classified as sensitive. Accordingly, personnel deputed to the vigilance wing from operational wings are to have a tenure of three years following which they are to be reverted to operational areas. In case of organizations that have a separate cadre for vigilance, the rotation should be done across region on expiry of tenure of three years in a particular office. CVOs are to certify annually that this exercise has been carried out. (CVC Circular No. 98/VGL/60 dated 02.11.2001). Therefore, A) A copy of annual certification by the CVO regarding this exercise may be provided.
B) The copy of extraordinary rules/records may be provided tinder which B. Saha, AS/US vigilance has been retained in vigilance unit since month of his absorption to month of retirement in vigilance unit for more than decade in violation of all the CVC guidelines and GO! rules on the subject of rotation of employees on sensitive posts.
Question No. (7):- The copy of noting/records of file of rotation of staff/officers on sensitive posts with circulars of last 05 years on the subject may be provided.
Question No. (8):- The loss and compensation as assessed may be provided against non-consideration of his applications for outside post due to delayed bogus departmental inquiry owing to negligence, partiality and willful slowing down of work by vigilance officials against provision in chapter 7 of CBSE Service rules 1985.
It is also humbly submitted to take reference of question No. 6 & 7 of his another RTI application No. CBSED/R/E/24/02184 dated 29.05.2024 (copy attached at Annexure- 2 for reference) in which, he is also targeting the staff of Vigilance Unit/staff of the Respondent organization. The question No. (6) and (7) of this RTI is given hereunder:-
Question No. (6):- Action taken by the CVC against CBSE officials for not concluding the vigilance case against him as per timelines given in the CVC letter No. 017/EDN/028/483844 dated 09.06.2021. Copy of its notes and orders on the file Page 20 of 26 of the CBSE and CVC are required where delay in case up to 29.05.2024 has,been justified illegally.
Question No. (7):- Action taken by the CVC against CBSE officials for not providing documents and not adhering to guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission issued vide its letter No. 99/VG1J66 dated 28.09.2000. Copy of its notes and orders on file of the CBSE and CVC are required.
It is humbly submitted that on perusal of above two RTI applications filed by him on dated 17.05.2024 and 29.05.2024, he is raising such questions related to Vigilance Unit just to target the staff of. Respondent organisation. He has indicated through his RTI towards the working of the CVO and posting of B. Saha, Under Secretary, CBSE in Vigilance Unit who was going to retirement on 31.05.2024. It seems that he was trying to put pressure on them to get favourable outcome in his disciplinary case/other related matters which is quasi-judicial in nature by asking such type of questions in the RTI application.
It is humbly submitted that the Appellant should understand that RTI is not a platform to defend his disciplinary case which is quasi judicial in nature. The documents related to his disciplinary proceedings i.e. Show Cause Notice, Charge Memorandum (Chargesheet), prosecution documents, defence documents, statement of witnesses, records of the inquiry proceedings, penalty order etc. are already available with him."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the predominant nature of the queries raised in the instant RTI Application(s) and the amplitude of the arguments stated in the second appeal memos beyond any reasonable doubt suggest sheer angst of the Appellant against the alleged disciplinary case instituted against him. In pursuit of his grievance, the Appellant has largely raised queries that seem like he is seeking for a specific record but in essence seek for interpretation and deduction of the available file notings/records by the CPIO to cull out the requisite explanations and justifications/rule positions etc. and thereby seeking to mortify the CPIO to justify the administrative Page 21 of 26 action/inaction of the public authority, which is not envisaged under the RTI Act. Further, whatever limited scope was apparent by way of ascertaining the probability of parting with specific available information after invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act stands negated by the detailed justification tendered by the CPIO in keeping with the provision of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:Page 22 of 26
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 23 of 26 In the above backdrop, the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, is also relevant:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' Similarly, with respect to the Appellant's dissatisfaction in respect of the permissible and available information provided by the CPIO, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the Page 24 of 26 confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
9. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
10. The Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 25 of 26
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Central Board of Secondary Education,
CPIO, RTI Branch,
"Shiksha Kendra", Headquarter, 2,
Community Centre Preet Vihar, Delhi -110092
2. Devender
Page 26 of 26
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)