Central Information Commission
Mr.Sushil Solanki vs Cbec on 14 May, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000136
Dated: 14.05.2012
Name of Appellant : Shri Sushil Solanki
Name of Respondent : Directorate General of Vigilance
Customs & Central Excise.
Date of Hearing : 11.04.2012
ORDER
Shri Sushil Solanki, hereinafter called the appellant has filed this appeal dated 13.7.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi for denial of information on Point No. (iii) of his RTI-request dated 30.3.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 11.04.2012. The appellant was absent, whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Sudhir Sharma, Assistant Commissioner and Shri Lal Bahadur, Superintendent.
2. The appellant had filed RTI application dated 30.3.2011 in which he sought information on the following three points against the issue of letter of caution to him without issue of Charge Memo - "(I) Whether my representation dated 20.5.2010 and my earlier representation right from April 2006 onwards (which have been referred in my letter dated 20.5.2010) has been considered or not; (ii) If the representation has been considered whether any reply was sent or not. If the reply was sent the copy thereof may be forwarded; and (iii) If the 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000136 representation was considered the copies of note sheet under which the said representation was examined may also be furnished". The CPIO vide his letter dated 3.5.2011 replied to the appellant on Point No. (i) & (ii) that his representation dated 20.5.2010 mentions about his representation dated 4.1.2006 and later representations requesting for withdrawal of Caution Letter dated 23.12.05 issued to him and enclosed copies of his representations dated 4.1.06 and 6.1.10. In this regard, it is informed that his representation dated 6.1.10 was examined in detail and referred to the Board and his request for withdrawal of Caution Letter has been rejected by the Revenue Secretary, vide noting dated 31.7.10. However, no reply appears to have been sent to him communicating decision taken in this regard; On Point No. (iii) Information was denied under the provisions of Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 16.5.2011 before FAA. The FAA, vide his order dated 20.6.2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that in this case vigilance inquiry has been conducted against the appellant and the evidence adduced against him as a result of the inquiry has resulted in issuance of caution letter against him. Copy of file notings as requested by the appellant cannot be provided as these contain the names of the investigating/ dealing officers and the remarks given by them with respect to the conduct of the charged officer and analysis of evidence, the disclosure of which may endanger their life or physical safety. As regards the plea taken by the appellant that he, being a responsible officer, is unlikely to cause harm or injury to others, the FAA held that appellant is a very senior officer of the department and during the course of investigations, the officers who are much junior to him might have commented on the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and given their views on the admissibility of evidence available against him. Even though these views and opinions have been given by the investigating/ dealing officers purely in discharge of their official functions, the disclosure of the same to the appellant may result in his nurturing a grudge against those officers which may reflect in the appraisal of the working of those officers by the appellant, if he 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000136 happen to supervise their working in any future assignment. So the Vigilance Department, in addition to the primary role of conducting vigilance investigations, is also concerned with the safety of the officers performing the investigations or processing the vigilance files. Thus, exemption under Section 8(1) (g) has rightly claimed by the CPIO from disclosure of the file noting of the subject vigilance case.
4. The appellant in his second appeal filed before the Commission submits that the CPIO and FAA have chosen to use the word "endanger the life or physical safety" without reading the full clause. The purpose of introduction of the said clause is not to disclose the identity of the informer who provide information to law enforcement agencies like police etc. In this case, the officers who have processed the file has not given any information to any law enforcement agencies or assisted them in investigation. Hence this clause is not at all applicable to the present case. The officers who might be junior or senior than him have examined the case records and given their views based on the facts of the case. If the views of CPIO and FAA are accepted, every Government officer who process certain files may take the plea that since he has given certain findings against another person, his life would be at risk, in that case, no information can be given under the RTI Act.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that file notings can be provided to the appellant after invoking the severability clause as defined in Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide photocopy of the file noting to the appellant, as sought by him at Point No. (iii) of his RTI application, within two weeks of receipt of this order, after invoking the severability clause as provided in Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 by severing the names/ designation of the investigating/dealing officers.
4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000136The matter is disposed of with the above directions.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Sushil Solanki, F-32, Hyderabad Estate, Nepean Sea Road, Opp. Priyadarshani Park, Mumbai-400006.
The Deputy Commissioner (Vig) & CPIO, Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, 3rd Floor, Hotel Samrat, Kautilya Marg, Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021.
The Additional Commissioner (Vig) & FAA, Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise, 3rd Floor, Hotel Samrat, Kautilya Marg, Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021.