Central Information Commission
Shailendra Grover vs Central Vigilance Commission on 26 July, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2016/308445/MP
Appellant : Shri Shailendra Grover, Dehradun
Public Authority : CVC, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : July 21, 2017
Date of Decision : July 26, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri M.A. Khan, Under Secretary - at CIC
RTI application : 21.06.2016
CPIO's reply : 26.07.2016
First appeal : 06.08.2016
FAA's order : 31.08.2016
Second appeal : 16.09.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Shailendra Grover, the appellant, sought to know as to whether or not CVC exercised superintendence over Delhi Police Special Establishment; whether or not the CVC monitored the CBI cases of Army Officers in which sanction for prosecution had been sought by Central Bureau of Investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act; etc., through four points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided a point wise response to the appellant on his RTI application and informed the appellant that CVC's jurisdiction did not extend to the officers covered under Army Act, 1950. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's response to points (b) & (c) of the RTI application, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a request to provide complete and correct information to the appellant since the CVC had jurisdiction and powers to monitor the cases of Army officers appointed under the Army Act, 1950. The FAA directed the CPIO to give a clear position to the appellant on points (b) &
(c) of his RTI application, within 15 days of the receipt of the FAA's order. In response to the FAA's order, the CPIO, vide reply dated 06.09.2016, gave a detailed response to the appellant on points (b) & (c) of the application. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to give complete and correct information to him.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had sought to know as to whether or not the CVC monitored the cases of Army Officers in which the advice of the CVC is sought by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for grant of prosecution sanction of such officers charged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that he was not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO that CVC had no jurisdiction over the Army Officers who were appointed under the Army Act, 1950. The appellant cited section 25 of the PC Act, 1988, Para 10 of CVC Manual and Supreme Court's judgment dated 13.03.2008 in the case of P.K. Choudhury vs. Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref) in support of his submissions wherein, the advice of CVC would be sought by the Ministry/Department concerned for sanctioning the prosecution of a public servant appointed by the Central Govt. and since Indian Army is a part of Ministry of Defence, the CVC could not deny its jurisdiction over Army Officers' cases. The appellant, therefore, alleged that he had been wrongly refused information by the respondent authority.
4. The respondent stated that neither the objective of the CVC Act, 2003 nor, the provisions of the Act mentioned that the Commission had jurisdiction over the Army Officers. In fact, Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(g) and 8(2) of the Act enumerated the functions and powers of the Commission according to which, the Commission would tender advice to the Central Govt., corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government Companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by Central Govt., on such matters as may be referred to it. Further, the CVC could only inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be undertaken against an official who is/was a member of All-India Services and Group 'A' officers of the Central Govt. and such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, etc. and the same was also available on the CVC's website. The respondent further added that CBI was only supposed to send a final report to the Commission on the matters investigated by it and the Commission had no further role in the matter. Therefore, the CPIO had provided the available information, as per the records, to the appellant.
5. On hearing both the parties and after perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO has provided the available information, as per the records, to the appellant. A public authority is not supposed to furnish clarification/explanations to the applicant but to provide only the existing and available information which is held by it or under its control and required to be maintained under any law or rule for the time being in force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"35. 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, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Alok Shukla vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated May 23, 2013), had held that:
"What the appellant wants here is clearly in the nature of seeking opinion and not information. Therefore, it is not within the capacity of the CPIO to offer any such opinion or comment".
The Commission further observes that there has been misinterpretation of various rules and laws on the part of the appellant as the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case of P.K. Choudhury vs. Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref), as cited by the appellant in his submissions, does not apply to the matter at hand since the Court had adjudicated upon the issue of whether or not the trial court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence committed by a public servant (army officer in the case), after the expiry of prescribed period of limitation and without the sanction of the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, Section 25 of the PC Act, 1988, does not override the provisions of the Army Act, 1950, while, the foreword of the CVC Manual has aptly put that: "As has always been underlined by the Commission, the Manual is only a ready reference book for use by all the officers involved in vigilance administration. It cannot and should not be a substitute for reference to the concerned rules and orders issued by the government."
It is not the jurisdiction/function of this Commission to interpret any rule/law or to add, substitute or modify any provision of the law which is plain and unambiguous in its meaning. Thus, the provisions of Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(g) and 8(2) of the CVC Act, 2003, nowhere states that CVC shall monitor/look into/advice/investigate the matters pertaining to Army Officers. The relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder for further clarification:
"8. (1) The functions and powers of the Commission shall be to-- (a) exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial;
(d) inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-
section (2) wherein it is alleged that he has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and an offence with which a public servant specified in subsection (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial;
(2) The persons referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) are as follows:--
(a) members of All-India Services serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and Group 'A' officers of the Central Government; (b) such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the Central Government, as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
(g) tender advice to the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government on such matters as may be referred to it by that Government, said Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government or otherwise;"
6. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Central Vigilance Commission, Central Vigilance Commission, Under Secretary, Additional Secretary, Satarkata Bhawan, Block-A, Satarkata Bhawan, Block-A, G.P.O. Complex, INA, G.P.O. Complex, INA, New Delhi- 110 023 New Delhi- 110 023 Shri Shailendra Grover, HO Commander Works Engineer (Hills), Military Engineering Services, The Mall Road, Dehradun Cantt, Uttarakhand - 248 003