Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 1 September, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2019/600852
Varun Krishna ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Security Printing And Minting ... ितवादी/Respondent
Corporation Of India Limited
(SPMCIL), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 14-12-2018 FA : Not on Record Complaint: 16-01-2019
CPIO : 09-01-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 24-08-2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), New Delhi seeking following information:-
"a) Subject matter of information: Pertaining to Vigilance File No. SPMCIL/VIG/531/16.
b) The period to which information relates: Date of File creation till the Date of disposal of this RTI application.
c) Description of Information required:
Please provide certified copies of following information:
1. Copies of all pages from the file till the date of disposal of this RTI."
2. The CPIO responded on 09-01-2019. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 1 of 5
Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. Expressing displeasure with the reply dated 09-01-2019, the complainant submitted that the respondent has given him an evasive reply thereby quoting the wrong exemption clause since the information pertaining to the said vigilance file cannot be construed as exempted information u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further alleged that the CPIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions. In this context, he pressed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondent contended that copies of all correspondence pages and notings of vigilance cases cannot be disclosed as these are confidential and sensitive in nature. Therefore, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the disclosure of the complete vigilance file would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated with the completion of the said inquiry. This Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission which has been relied upon by the respondent.
This Commission refers to the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
"6...In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona- fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...Confidentiality of note-Page 2 of 5
files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."
7. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that the furnishing of the copies of the vigilance file may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Copy of the vigilance file cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. The information sought by the complainant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, this Commission hereby upholds the reply sent by the CPIO and accordingly, no ground is made out in the matter for imposition of penalty on the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01-06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 titled as Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., wherein, it was held as under:-
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts Page 3 of 5 imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
8. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to substantiate his contentions regarding malafide denial of information by the respondent or for withholding it without any Page 4 of 5 reasonable cause. In view of this, no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in this case.
9. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:24-08-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of
India Limited (SPMCIL), Nodal PIO, RTI Cell,
16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Varun Krishna
Page 5 of 5