Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjiv Chaturvedi vs Environment And Forest on 29 May, 2024
OA No. 1120 of 2022
(Reserved on 03.05.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(CIRCUIT BENCH, NAINITAL)
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
New Delhi this, the 29th day of May, 2024
Original Application No. 1120 OF 2022
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV JOSHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. ANAND S. KHATI, MEMBER (A)
Sanjiv Chaturvedi, IFS, R/o H.No. D-I, Forest Training Institute,
Rampur Road, Haldwani, Nainital-263139
....Applicant
By Applicant- in- person
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel
and Training, Government of India, North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi -110001
2. Establishment Officer, Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, North Block, Central Secretariat, New
Delhi-110001
3. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change, Indira Parayaran Bhavan, Jor Bag, New Delhi-03
......Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar & Shri T.C. Aggarwal
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi-applicant in person and Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned Special Government Counsel assisted PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 1 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 by Shri T.C. Aggarwal, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case through Virtual Mode.
2. The applicant, who is an Officer of Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred as „IFS‟) of 2002 batch of Uttarakhand Cadre, is aggrieved by rejection for empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary/equivalent at Government of India, conveyed to him vide order dated 15.11.2022 and filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):
"A) To issue appropriate directions to Respondents for summoning of entire record related to the process and decision making for empanelment of Applicant at the level of Joint Secretary/equivalent at Government of India, decided and conveyed vide Letter No. 12034/04/2021-IFS-I dated 15.11.2022, including complete record of 360 degree appraisal, complete documents of proceedings and recommendations of Expert Panel and Civil Services Board (CSB) and findings/decision by Competent Authority and provide the same to Applicant, at the earliest in accordance with / compliance with orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors- (2008) 8 SCC 725 and judgments mentioned in instant O.A. B) To direct Respondents to communicate each and every material/documents to Applicant regarding his consideration and rejection for empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary at Government of India so as to enable him to exercise his right to represent/appeal, against rejection order No. 12034/04/2021-IFS-I dated 15.11.2022 in proper manner.
C) To issue appropriate directions to Respondents to
produce all the documents related to
Rules/Notification/Office Memorandum system of 360 degree appraisal which has already disclosed by Respondents before Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on personnel, Public Grievances, Law And Justice (Report presented at Rajya Sabha on 08.08.2017).
PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 2 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 D) To issue any orders deemed fit under facts and circumstances of the case."
3. From the relief sought i.e. 8 (A), it is apparent that the applicant sought the following reliefs:
I. Complete record of 360 Appraisal,
II. Complete document of proceeding and recommendation
of Expert Panel and Civil Services Board (CSB), III. Findings/decision by the Competent Authority to provide Applicant.
4. However, at the outset, the applicant, who appeared in person, fairly conceded that prayer of the first part of 8 (A) and 8 (C) in the Original Application regarding 360 degree appraisal has become redundant in view of unequivocal admission by the respondents in the counter affidavit that „these records do not exist‟ and „no such system is there in the Government of India‟. Hence, the applicant is not pressing prayer of the first part of 8 (A) and 8 „C‟ of the present Original Application.
5. It is averred by the applicant that in terms of Guidelines for Empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary/equivalent in Government of India, the following eligibility conditions were laid down:
"(i) Officers who have rendered 17 years of service in Group 'A', AND
(ii) Drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 37400-67000+Grade Pay Rs.10000 (Pre-revised Rs. 18400-22400) in their respective parent cadre/service, OR Where an officer is on deputation he should be on the panel approved by the ACC for the scale of Rs.
37400- 67000+Grade Pay Rs. 10000 in that service/cadre and an officer junior to him on the PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 3 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 panel should have been appointed to the post in the scale of pay of 37400- 67000+Grade Pay Rs.10000 in the service/cadre, OR For the AIS, the appointment of at least one officer of the batch year of the service of any State cadre in the scale of Rs.37400-67000+Grade Pay Rs.10000 (Pre- revised Rs. 18400-22400) would be a pre-condition for consideration of an officer of a particular year of allotment."
6. Though the applicant fulfilled all requisite conditions having completed 20 years of service, clear from vigilance clearance, consistent outstanding appraisal reports for past ten years and granted promotion to level 14 w.e.f. 01.01.2020 vide order dated 23.12.2019, but his empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary/equivalent in Government of India has been rejected, vide order dated 15.11.2022.
7. The applicant further averred that All India Services (Performance Appraisal) Rules, 2007 mandates communication of appraisal by competent authority to member of service. In Section 2 of the Rules, the word „empanelment‟ has been defined as under:
"empanelment means the process of assessing the suitability for appointment at the level of Joint Secretary and above, as well as equivalent post in Government of India"
8. Accordingly, the process of empanelment has to be governed in accordance with the statutory provisions of rules, so that one can exercise his right to represent/appeal. This arrangement is in accordance with order passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725. However, in violation of these statutory rules and orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, no such material regarding above PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 4 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 mentioned appraisals was ever communicated to him by the respondents, depriving him to exercise his right to represent/appeal. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing vs. M/s Swaraj Developers & Ors., reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659, wherein it has been held that right to appeal is a substantive right.
9. The applicant further argued that in response to RTI application filed by him to obtain these documents, the same were denied by the respondents. Even the representation dated 21.11.2022 preferred by him, followed by reminder on 08.12.2022, appended as Annexure-9 series to this Original Application, were not responded to by the respondents; as a result, his status as an All India Service Officer is threatened to be negated. The applicant further added that recently order of rejection/non-empanelment is openly circulated with names of rejected officers, whereas the same was not done earlier, which does incalculable harm to his reputation and professional standing, as it is clearly spelled out in procedures for empanelment that it is based on qualities of „general reputation, merit and competence‟. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.
10. The applicant has placed reliance on catena of judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, wherein it has been held that it is part of principles of natural justice that grounds/reasons are conveyed in such administrative orders and non-communication of precise ground for non-empanelment would constitute de-facto denial of rights, doctrine of legitimate PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 5 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 expectations and also that right to reputation is part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A few of these are listed below:
(i) Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 (para 21);
(ii) Kiran Bedi vs. Committee of Inquiry and Another, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 494 (Paras 22 to 25);
(iii) Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs Union of India, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 1 (para 188.1 and 188.2);
(iv) K.L. Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Meghalaya and Ors., reported in (1995) 2 GLR2018 (para 13);
(v) State of Bihar & Ors. vs Shyama Nandan Mishra in Civil Appeal Nos. 7364, 7365, 7368, 7371, 7373, 7374 of 2014 (para 36);
(vi) E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 1974 AIR 555 : 1974 SCR (2) 348 (para 85);
(vii) S.P. Gupta vs Union of India, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87 (para 64, 66 & 67);
(viii) Umesh Kumar vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para 18);
(ix) Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi judgment in Union of India thr‟ Director, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension vs Central Information Commission & Shri P.D. Khandelwal in WP(C) No. 8396 of 2009 AT (paras 54 to 57);
PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 6 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022
(x) A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajkula Vamsathu Madalya nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam and Others, (2012) 6 SCC 430 (Paras 22, 24, 25 & 29);
(xi) Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 (para 47)
(xii) Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (C) No.880/2017 by Apex Court (Para 29b, 60, 62-65, 104, 2016 and 2017)
(xiii) Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Vs. M/s. Swaraj Developers & Ors. Reported in (2003) 6 SCC 659 (para 13)
(xiv) Anurag Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & ors. Reported in (2016) 9 SCC 423 (para 16)
(xv) State of Maharashtra VS. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors., reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435 (para 12 ) (xvi) Order dated 22.02.2023 passed in O.A. No.790/2017 by Circuit Bench of CAT, Nainital (para 3-7) (xvii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust (2007) 3 SCC 587 (para 39-41) (xviii) Order dated 21.08.2018 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in WPSB 359/2018 (page 463-464 of compilation) (xix) All India Institute of Medical Sciecne Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. Passed by the Apex Court in CA No.1392/2018 (para 10-11, 37, 73-74) (xx) Order dated 27.09.2021 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in WPSB No.407/2020 (para 27) PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 7 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 (xxi) order dated 23.10.2021 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in WPSB NO.407/2020 (para 32 and 37) (xxii) Order dated 02.06.2016 passed by Principal bench of CAT, Delhi in case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India through Cabinet Secretary in M.A. No.1917/2016 in O.A. No.945/2016) (para 2, 4-5) (xxiii) Order dated 03.05.2016 passed by Principal Bench of CAT Delhi in case of Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India through Cabinet Secretary in O.A. NO.1887/2015 (para 14-21) (xxiv) Order dated 06.05.2015 passed by Principal Bench of CAT, Delhi in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India through Cabinet Secretary in No.661/2015 (para 7-9) (xxv) Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Circuit Bench of Nainital CAT Bench in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. M/o Environment and Forest in O.A. No.111/2020 (page 550 of Compilation) (xxvi) order dated 15.02.2024 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in WPSB No.269/2023 (para 5) (xxvii) Order dated 25.11.2020 passed by Circuit Bench of Nainital CAT, in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. D/o Personnel and Training in O.A. No.532/2020 (xxviii) Order dated 29.05.2019 passed by High Court of Delhi in case of Sombir Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Anr. In CWP No.6256/2019 (para 9-15).etc.
11. The applicant vigorously argued that the orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are binding for all executive/judicial authorities of the country in terms of Article 141 of Constitution of India and, PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 8 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 hence, the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt (supra) cannot be overruled/ignored by the respondents and such wilful disobedience of the orders will attract contempt proceedings in terms of Priya Gupta & Anr. vs Addl. Secy. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 404. The applicant further argued that neither there is any statutory bar nor any prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents by disclosure/supply of aforesaid documents to him.
12. It is also submitted by the applicant that as per empanelment guidelines, around 75% of total batch strength has to be empanelled, whereas in this case only 2 officers out of batch strength of 33 officers of 2002 batch of IFS have been empanelled and, hence, there are still vacancies of 21 officers to be empanelled. The applicant further submitted that due to rejection for empanelment vide order dated 15.11.2022. The applicant has suffered irreparable loss because as per the extant rules if he fails to be empanelled at the level of Joint Secretary, he will be automatically debarred for empanelment at subsequent higher level of Government of India and would not be able to serve in Central Government again in future and reduced to a level of State Civil Services Officer and, accordingly, prayed that the aforesaid material may please be supplied to him to enable him to at least represent in a proper manner.
13. Per contra, learned counsels appeared on behalf of respondents took preliminary objection that the applicant has not challenged the order dated 15.11.2022 issued regarding his non- PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 9 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 empanelment to the post of Joint Secretary/equivalent in the Government of India. Learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that Nainital Bench has no jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application, since the cause of action pertains and arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench, and, therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the applicant in his representation dated 17.12.2022 himself requested to treat his communication dated 21.11.2022 against the order dated 15.11.2022 as a tentative one and, hence, the same cannot be construed as a representation.
14. By placing reliance on the counter affidavit, he argued that the documents sought by the applicant cannot be provided to the applicant as the RTI Act is not applicable to the files pertaining to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred as „ACC‟) and the Civil Services Board (hereinafter referred as „CSB‟) Meeting Agenda, its Minutes and Notes for ACC are part of the proposal submitted to the ACC. As per the provisions of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, "Cabinet papers including records of deliberation of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers" are exempted from disclosure, provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over. It is further submitted that disclosure of ACC papers under the RTI Act, 2005 is currently under challenge in Delhi High Court in LPA PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 10 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 No.347/2010 (Union of India vs. P.D. Khandelwal), wherein vide Order dated 12.07.2010, the impugned order has been stayed.
15. Learned counsels for the respondents further argued that whatever documents were permissible as per the Act, have already been provided to the applicant and the matter regarding other documents which are not provided, is sub-judice before the Hon‟ble High Court.
16. The learned counsels for the respondents further clarified that since empanelment is pre-requisite for appointment at Joint Secretary Level posts, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any officer, who reaches the Senior Administrative Grade position (hereinafter referred as „SAG‟), as it is not a promotion process to any post but to assess the suitability of an officer for holding Joint Secretary/equivalent posts in the Centre (Government of India). Annual Performance Assessment Reports (hereinafter referred as „APARs‟) are one of the tools in empanelment process to assess the suitability of the officer and, therefore, the word „empanelment‟ is defined in The All India Service (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 2007), but „Empanelment‟ is not governed by the said Rules. The word „Empanelment‟ is derived from Central Staffing Scheme, 1996, which was launched to borrow the officers from their respective cadres to fulfil the requirement of Central Government on deputation basis. Based on this, separate set of guidelines for empanelment are available to empanel officers for holding the post of Joint Secretary in Government of India.
PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 11 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022
17. It is also highlighted that as per the provisions of Central Staffing Scheme (hereinafter referred as „CSS‟), no individual member of an All India Service can claim any right to a post or appointment under the Government of India on this ground, i.e. tenure deputation. The Joint Secretary Empanelment guidelines also say that:
"Empanelment should be considered not as a reflection of the intrinsic merit or otherwise or competence of an officer but the suitability of an officer to occupy senior levels in the Central Government. Given the background and experience of an officer, she or he may be highly suited to occupy senior positions in State government. Likewise, another officer, in view of the background and experience, may be considered more suitable for Central Government posts."
18. Besides that, the example of various other officers given by the applicant is misleading as the applicant was given consideration, but not found suitable by the Competent Authority.
19. Learned counsel for the respondents further added that the judgment in Dev Dutt (supra) refers to a different aspect altogether, i.e., the object of writing confidential report and making entries is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve the performance and it was held by the Apex Court that all entries in ACR/APAR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. However, in the present case, the ACRs/APARs of the applicant have already been served upon him and, hence, there is no violation of tenets of Dev Dutt (supra).
PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 12 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022
20. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsels for the respondents that the Empanelment guidelines provide opportunity to all the officers whose names are being considered for empanelment to represent and the applicant was also given such opportunity when empanelment process was started for 2002 batch IFS, however, no representation was received from him. Moreover, the Competent Authority is not liable to disclose or spell out any reasons for non-empanelment, as the order dated 15.11.2022 is not under challenge in the present Original Application nor non- empanelment of the applicant.
21. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the concept of "doctrine of legitimate expectations" is not applicable in service jurisprudence. Even in case of promotion, there is no inherent right for promotion but a right for consideration for promotion is there. The non-empanelment of any officer does not take away his status of All India Service Officer nor hinder him from discharging his constitutional duty to serve either in his State Cadre or the Govt. of India. As per Central Staffing Scheme, the officers are borrowed from the State Cadre and after serving for a limited period, they are repatriated to their parent cadre. The growth, development and carrier prospects of any officer are in their own service and cadre. The process of empanelment does not have criteria of either promotion or seniority.
22. We are also apprised that the applicant is already holding the post of Joint Secretary/equivalent in the State Govt. Cadre and, thus, he cannot have any grievance regarding his non- PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 13 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 promotion or non-consideration. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
23. In rejoinder, the applicant strenuously opposed the submissions and grounds taken by the learned counsel for the respondents and argued that prayer for summoning the documents is under Section 22 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which is totally independent and self contained statutory provision and neither provisions of RTI Act nor any ruling/case law relating to RTI Act are applicable for proceedings under aforesaid Section. Further, even Section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act provides that decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken and the matter is complete/over.
24. By way of written submission dated 09.05.2024, the applicant has also submitted that in M.A. No.888/2019 in Original Application No. 790/2017, vide order dated 23.02.2023, coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had ordered to produce documents related to empanelment of another All India Service officer Shri Vineet Chaudhary, IAS (1982:HP) for holding Secretary/equivalent posts at the Centre issued by DoPT vide order No.35/5/2017-EO(SM-I) dated 22.12.2017 exercising its power under Section 22(3) of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and the said order was not challenged by the concerned respondent.
25. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by both sides with reference to the materials and circumstances on PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 14 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 record and have also gone through the written submissions and pronouncements relied upon by the applicant-in-person.
26. The issue raised by the respondents regarding territorial jurisdiction of Principal Bench no longer exists in view of attachment of Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench and the cases of the Nainital Circuit Bench being heard by the Principal Bench through physical or virtual mode.
27. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the competent Authority, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) has not approved the empanelment of the applicant along with another officer, for holding the post of JS/equivalent at the Centre (Government of India). The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant for summoning all the documents/records related to the process and decision making, appraisals by Expert Panel and CSB and finding/decision of the Competent Authority regarding consideration/rejection for empanelment at the level of JS/equivalent, to enable him to exercise his right to appeal/representation against the said rejection.
28. It is noticed that the applicant‟s case was considered for empanelment at the level of JS/equivalent, but not found suitable by the Competent Authority. As per the guidelines prescribed in the scheme, for empanelment at the level of Joint Secretary/equivalent in the Central Government, the Civil Services Board (CSB) takes into account the experience profile of the officers, scrutinizes ACR/APAR dossiers, overall service records, vigilance status, Multi PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 15 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 Source Feedback from various stakeholders etc. with regard to the concerned officer. The attributes regarding the concept of Multi Source Feedback includes decision making, ownership, pro- activeness, delivery, leadership, honesty and suitability for higher positions, which the CSB evaluates before recommending the list of officers. It is not only formality but a pre-requisite and it is the absolute right of the Competent Authority to empanel suitable officers, as deemed fit by it, for various duties to be performed and implement various projects/schemes/policy decisions of the Central Government. There is no room for doubt that ordinarily, right to consider is a fundamental right, however, if his case is considered and incumbent does not qualify because of lack of criteria or whatever reasons, the candidate cannot lay claim for the same.
29. It is not disputed by the applicant that all his ACRs/APARs and the documents/records, which are permissible under RTI Act, have already been provided to him. However, the files pertaining to the ACC and the CSB meeting agenda, its minutes, notes for ACC etc. could not be provided to him being confidential records, as per Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act which prohibits for disclosure of such documents. Hence, we do not feel that there is any violation of doctrine of Dev Dutt (supra) in the present case.
30. The order dated 15.11.2022 for non-empanelment of the applicant for consideration at JS/equivalent level is not challenged by the applicant in the present Original Application, therefore, we cannot insist upon the respondents to give reasons for his non- PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 16 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 empanelment. Insofar as applicant‟s plea regarding immense harm to his reputation and professional standing is concerned, non- empanelment of any officer does not take away his status of All India Service Officer nor hinder him from discharging his Constitutional duty to serve either in his State Cadre or in Central Govt. There is no criterion of seniority/promotion in the process of empanelment and the officers are borrowed from the State Cadre as per CSS and after serving for a limited period, they are repatriated to their parent cadre. Hence, the growth and carrier prospects of any officer are in their own service/cadre and the applicant has already got the due promotion of Joint Secretary in his State cadre.
31. The applicant admitted that he filed a representation on 21.11.2022 before the competent Authority, challenging the order dated 15.11.2022 followed by a reminder dated 08.12.2022, which is still pending consideration and same has also been appended by the applicant as Annexure-9 collectively.
32. We have also gone through the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench in MA No.888/2019 in OA No. 790/2017, which was filed by the applicant demanding the detail of documents pertaining to closure of case regarding corruption in purchase of Disinfectants in Trauma Centre by Union Health Ministry & CVC, overruling CBI report of October, 2015, emanated from investigation done by the applicant as CVO, to prove malice against him and the coordinate Bench directed to produce the same in court being necessary documents for just and fair decision in the matter. However, in the instant Original Application, the records PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 17 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022 asked for by the applicant pertains to ACC and CSB and being of confidential nature, cannot be made available in public domain.
33. Coming to various decisions cited by the applicant, we have gone through those judgments and are of the view that the judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable inasmuch as they have been rendered on different set of facts and circumstances, and cannot be imported for application to the present case and, as such, will provide no help to him.
34. In view of the above discussion, since the documents/records sought by the applicant have already been provided to him to the extent permissible under the law and disclosure of the records pertaining to ACC and CSB being confidential documents is prohibited as per Section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act. There seems to be no reason to interfere with the approach taken by the respondents and, thus, no intervention is called for on the part of this Tribunal. Resultantly, instant Original Application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
35. All MAs pending in this Original Application also stand disposed off.
36. Registry of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench is directed to return the entire records of this Original Application being O.A. No.1120/2022 (Nainital) as well as O.A. No.95/2021 (Nainital) to Principal Bench, New Delhi, within a period of three days from today through a special Messenger. PUNIT 2024.05.30 KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 18 of 19 MISHRA+05'30' OA No. 1120 of 2022
38. A copy of this order be handed over to Deputy Registrar/HoO, CAT Allahabad Bench for necessary action.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
PM/-
PUNIT 2024.05.30
KUMAR 11:25:26 Page 19 of 19
MISHRA+05'30'