Central Information Commission
Mrprasadburla vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 12 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004393-YA
Date of Hearing : 04.02.2016
Date of Decision : 12.03.2016
Complainant/Appellant : Sh. Burla Prasad
Khammam (Telan)
Through: Appellant in person
Respondent : Heavy Water Plant
Department of Atomic Energy Khammam (Telangana) Through:
Shri R.K. Gupta, CPIO Shri R.G. Raghvan, APIO Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.04.2014 CPIO replied on : 22.05.2014 First Appeal filed on : 09.06.2014 First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 26.06.2014 Complaint/ Second Appeal received on : 21.07.2014 Information Sought:
The appellant sought certified copies of file noting, correspondence and related documents in connection with memo No- HWP(M) ADMN(E)/IC-155/2004/3297 dated 17.04.2014 issued to him by the public authority along with certified copy of his letter dated 05.09.1991 withdrawing the nomination in favour of Ms. B.Annapurna.
Relevant facts emerging from hearing:
Both parties are present and heard. The appellant filed an RTI application on 27.01.2014 seeking the aforesaid information under 3 points. Vide letter dated 26.02.2014; the CPIO furnished information on point no. 2 &3 only. The FAA upheld the decision of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission.
Upon a query made by the Commission as regards the subject matter of letter under reference; the appellant states it to be the memorandum whereby a show cause notice was served on him for initiating disciplinary action against him for having committed bigamy. The appellant sought all records containing file notings, correspondence that culminated in issuance of the aforesaid memorandum. Per contra, the CPIO states that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the appellant as on date in the aforesaid context. The CPIO clarifies that since it had come to the knowledge of competent authority that the appellant had allegedly committed bigamy; the memo in question was issued to the appellant seeking his reply in same context. The CPIO invokes clause (j) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and submits that since the 'investigation' in the matter is underway hence any revelation thereof may impede the process Decision:-
The essence of RTI law is disclosure of information. Disclosure is rule and non-disclosure is an exception. A public authority is burdened with the onus to show that the withheld information falls within the purview of Section 8 RTI Act. In the present appeal, the CPIO claims exemption from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8 of RTI Act, 2005. The relevant part is reproduced hereinafter:
Section 8 - Exemption from disclosure of information (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
The expression 'investigation' has not been defined in the RTI Act, 2005. Clause (h) of Section 2 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines it as:
(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.
The expression 'investigation' thus implies the act of ascertainment of existence or non existence of facts. Thus, investigation culminates in formation of a tentative opinion which is further strengthened or thwarted by stages of trial. The expressions 'trial' & 'disciplinary proceedings' are analogous as both are aimed at ascertainment of culpability of the delinquent. Thus, the purpose of investigation is to lay a foundation for the departmental action. Without following the due process of law and principles of natural justice, investigation simpliciter cannot determine culpability of a delinquent official. It is not the case of the appellant that a formal chargesheet has been issued to him. The investigation is presently underway and upon conclusion whereof, the Competent authority shall decide as to whether proceedings be initiated against the appellant or not. Suffice is to say that, at present stage, the appellant has no equitable right to seek details of the investigation. Such right would have arisen had the appellant suffered any detriment due to the investigation, which is not the case herein.
Yet another facet of the issue is that any revelation of the information sought at this nascent stage of proceedings would unduly fetter upon the prerogative of the investigator.
Needless to say, the position would have been different altogether if the process of investigation resulted into issuance of charge sheet. After hearing both parties and perusal of record, the Commission concurs with stand of the respondent public authority. However, the Commission notes that even after two years of issue of a show cause notice, the public authority is not in a position to state the progress of the case. The appellant has the right to know the status of proceedings after two years of having received show cause notice. The respondent is directed to intimate the current status of the case to the appellant, within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
As regards query no. 2 of the RTI application, the CPIO is directed to offer inspection of personal file of the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to take certified copies from his personal file free of cost upto a maximum of 25 pages only.
The appeal is disposed in the above terms.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(V.D.Nanivadekar) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Central Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Deputy General Manager - (P) & CPIO, Chief General Manager & FAA, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Atomic Energy, Heavy Water Plant - (Manuguru), Heavy Water Plant - (Manuguru), Gautaminagar, Aswapuram, Gautaminagar, Aswapuram, District - Khammam-507116 (Telangana). District - Khammam-507116 (Telangana).
Shri Burla Prasad Quarter No. : C-6-2/1, Gauthaminagar Colony, Aswapuram (Post), District - Khammam-507116 (Telangana).