Central Information Commission
Dinesh Singh vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 25 September, 2018
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/CCITD/A/2017/146779-BJ
Mr. Dinesh Singh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Dy. DIT(Vig.)
Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance),
1st Floor, Dayal Singh Public Library Building,
1, Deena Dayal Upadhayaya Marg,
New Delhi-110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2018
Date of Decision : 25.09.2018
Date of RTI application 22.02.2017
CPIO's response 06/07.03.2017/
29.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 04.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 12.04.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of Memorandum reference dated 06.02.2017, whether approval of the Competent Disciplinary Authority had been obtained for issuing the above referred memorandum to him, if yes, a copy of the order/note sheet from the initiation of the matter till the approval and other related issues.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 06/07.03.2017 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, O/o the Principal Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), New Delhi u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Subsequently, the CPIO, Directorate General of Income Tax (Vigilance) vide letter dated 29.03.2017 stated that the case was under progress and proceeding against the Applicant was pending. Therefore, the information sought was denied u/s 8(1) (h) of Page 1 of 3 the RTI Act, 2005 as the disclosure of information at this stage would impede the process of investigation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.04.2017, upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Diwakar Singh, DDIT (Vigilance);
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Darshan Parmar, Network Engineer NIC studio at Ahmedabad confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, explained that complete justification for non-disclosure of the information had been made by the FAA. It was also submitted that the disciplinary proceedings are at final stage and that any disclosure at this stage could impede the process of investigation.
As regards the exemption claimed u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission referred to decision of K.S. Prasad Vs SEBI, CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 wherein it had been held as under:
"...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority."
In this context a reference can be made to the decision of the bench of the Commission in Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
16. The Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in the course of the hearing. The appellant had underlined emphatically the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e. the protection given to the 'fiduciary' elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public interest without taking into account that the investigation is still going on. We have, therefore, to await the completion of this investigation. It will not be wise for the Commission to speculate as to what conclusions the SEBI will draw."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Page 2 of 3DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 25.09.2018
Page 3 of 3