Central Information Commission
Major (Retd) P.G. Deval vs Central Excise & Customs Department on 23 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00354
Dated, the 23rd July, 2008.
Appellant : Major (Retd) P.G. Deval
Respondents : Central Excise & Customs Department
This second-appeal came up for hearing on 17.07.2008 pursuant to Commission's hearing notice dated 19.06.2008. Appellant was present through his Counsel, Shri Vijay Kumar. Respondents were represented by Shri Ajit Indurkar, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Shri J.S.Shinde, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 23.07.2007, appellant Major (Retd) P.D.Deval raised queries in respect of a certain proceeding before the Commissioner (Appeal) Shri B.K. Sinha. Appellant has quoted from an order dated 29.01.2007 passed by Shri Sinha, the Commissioner (Appeal) and demanded to know information such as "who led the said agreement as evidence before the Commissioner (Appeal)"; "whether the said agreement in original vernacular language Marathi was translated in English for presentation before Commission (Appeal)"; if translated, a copy of the English translation of the original Marathi agreement; the proficiency of the Appellate Commissioner, Shri B.K.Sinha in Marathi; Departmental Rules regarding procedure for conducting personal hearing by Adjudicating Authority; among others.
3. CPIO provided to the appellant a reply through his communication dated 08.08.2007. The Appellate Authority's order was dated 05.11.2007. He upheld the orders of the CPIO in all respects except two items, in regard to which he directed that information be disclosed to the appellant. These items were relevant and legible copies of the Excise Manual and the circular "Grant of Reward to Informer and Government servants ― review of the policy, procedure and guidelines ― regarding".
4. The present second-appeal of the appellant is limited to queries at Sl.Nos.2, 3, and 6 appearing on his RTI-application dated 23.07.2007.
5. These three queries are discussed as below:-
Query No.2: "Whether the said agreement in original vernacular language Marathi was translated in English for presentation before Commissioner (Appeal) for recording findings on the said Page 1 of 4 agreement, if yes please give the name, address, appointment, if any and qualification of the person who translated it. Please give copy of translation of the said agreement that was relied upon by Commissioner (Appeal) while passing the stay order."
Appellant's point is that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not conversant with the language of the agreement, which was before him as evidence, and he wishes to know as to how the Agreement was translated for his perusal and understanding.
The respondents are unwilling to provide this answer to the appellant on the ground that there was nothing on the records of the Commissioner (Appeals) which would reveal as to what methodology was followed by the Commissioner(Appeal) in getting the Marathi document translated into English.
Decision:
Commission examined this matter from the limited point of view of whether the query qualifies to be 'information' in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is clear that what the appellant is asking does not qualify to be 'information' strictly within the meaning of Section 2(f). Apart from that, since no record of what methodology was followed for getting the Marathi document translated into English seems to have been kept by the Commissioner (Appeal), it is not possible to make enquiries about it under the RTI Act to provide an answer to the appellant.
In view of the above, it is held that no disclosure obligation shall be cast on the respondents for this item of query.
Query No.3: "If answer to Q2 is negative or No translation was done before placing the said agreement before Commissioner (Appeal) then please give following information:-
(i) Mother tongue of Commissioner (Appeal) Shri B.K. Sinha as given in his record of Service
(ii) Proficiency of Shri B.K. Sinha in Marathi language in terms of 'Read-write-speak' as recorded in his record of service."
Decision:
Even a cursory look at this query leaves one in no doubt that it is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is not open to a petitioner to ask for the language-proficiency of employees of a public authority by invoking the provisions of the RTI Act. It is not open also to him to ask as to what is the Page 2 of 4 mother tongue of a given employee. That information is entirely personal to the employee and there is no reason why this should be disclosed under the RTI Act. Apart from that, this variety of information does not qualify to be 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and hence is not liable for disclosure.
Query No.6: "Whether Code of Civil Procedure, Indian Evidence Act are applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings conducted by Central Excise Officers during Adjudication and Appeal?"
The answer of the CPIO was as straight-forward as the query itself was straight-forward. CPIO has stated that the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings such as the one which took place before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Decision:
In view of the above, it is held that there shall be no further disclosure obligation as regards this query.
6. Appellant has made a general submission that public authorities are accountable for their actions, and those public authorities which function in quasi-judicial capacity shoulder a higher responsibility to be fair, just and impartial in their actions. He has claimed that the Commissioner (Appeals), Shri B.K.Sinha had not conducted the quasi-judicial proceeding in the appellant's case (before that authority) as per the requirement of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, according to the appellant, made it mandatory for quasi-judicial authorities to record in writing the proceedings and, provide a copy of such proceedings to the party on request.
7. It is obvious from these averments that the appellant wishes to call in question the quasi-judicial proceeding conducted by Shri B.K.Sinha, Commissioner (Appeal) in the appellant's case.
8. RTI Act does not provide a forum where such debates can be conducted. Proceedings before a quasi-judicial authority is a valid proceeding till such time as a superior body takes a contrary view. Attempts to impeach such proceeding by asking loaded questions regarding the knowledge of the language of the presiding officers and so on, through the medium of the RTI Act, must be discouraged lest the RTI Act becomes an instrument to question the validity of quasi-judicial and even judicial proceedings.
9. In view of the above, the Commission finds no merit in the submissions of the appellant, which is disallowed.
Page 3 of 410. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Authenticated by -
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH ) Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar Page 4 of 4