Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 18 September, 2024
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. (As per Annexure)
Deepak Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
CBSE, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Preet Vihar, Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of First Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's Appeal FAA's Second
No. Reply Order Appeal
1. 645258 08.06.2023 07.07.2023 20.07.2023 30.08.2023 18.09.2023
2. 644123 08.06.2023 07.07.2023 19.07.2023 17.08.2023 11.09.2023
3. 636780 11.05.2023 09.06.2023 16.06.2023 14.07.2023 28.07.2023
4. 636775 10.05.2023 09.06.2023 08.06.2023 12.07.2023 28.07.2023
5. 636755 08.05.2023 07.06.2023 13.06.2023 12.07.2023 28.07.2023
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 05.09.2024
Date of Decision: 17.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/645258
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 15(i) Report of the duly constituted Committee constituted by the Competent Authority for updation and compilation of CBSE Service Rules 1985;
(ii) Notes and orders with regard to approval of Competent Authority for updation and compilation of CBSE Service Rules 1985;
(iii) Copy of Agenda Item number 15 placed in Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014;
(iv) Duties and responsibilities as approved by Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014 and rectified by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 06.08.2014;
(v) Notes and orders with regard to approval of Competent Authority for printing of updated CBSE Service Rules 1985 after its approval by Finance Committee in its meeting held on 31.07.2014 and ratification by Governing Body in its meeting held on 06.04.2014; and ..., etc./ other related information.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i-ii: Question is not specific and clear period and year under question required to trace out the specific information. Therefore, not able to furnish desired information.
iii-v: Please find attached a copy of letter dated 21.11.2017 send to the O/o Inspection Officer, Director General of Audit New Delhi. wherein it was informed that the proposed amendment has not been revised by incorporating the latest decisions/amendment after June, 2011. (copy of note Sheet enclosed).
Due to other pending/suggestion in the Service Rule -- 1985 & approval thereof.
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and stated that:Page 2 of 15
i- As rule 2(f) of RTI Act only the documents which are available in material form is to be supplied under RTI Act. The document sought by the applicant is not available in material form.
ii- Copy of Note dated 26.03.2014 is enclosed.
iii-iv: Copy of agenda item is enclosed.
v: Copy of note dated 20.11.2014 1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.09.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/644123
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The complete copies of Notes and orders and supporting documents/ records wherein such proposals/recommendations were made and the Competent Authority/ Disciplinary Authority decided for issue of seeking explanation and issue of Article of Charge to the undersigned n confirmation matter of Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary.
(ii) The complete copies of Notes and orders and supporting documents/ records wherein the proposals/ recommendations were made and the Competent Authority/ Disciplinary Authority decided to exempt seeking of explanation and issue Article of Charge to the others officials / officers who dealt with / decided matter appointment, pay fixation, release of pay on impugned joining and confirmation in r/o Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary.
(iii) The complete copies of Notes and orders and supporting documents/ records wherein the proposals/ recommendations were made on complaints received on subject matter from undersigned and the Competent Authority/ Disciplinary Authority decided to exempt seeking of explanation and issue Article of Charge Page 3 of 15 to the others officials / officers who dealt with / decided matter appointment, pay fixation, release of pay on impugned joining and confirmation in r/o Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary.
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i-ii: The notesheets/documents wherein competent authority considered initiation of disciplinary proceedings as a composite case, against the various officers and officials of the Board in the matter of alleged irregularities in appointment, joining and confirmation of Smt. Babita Rani to the post of Assistant Secretary on direct recruitment basis, for their alleged delinquencies, contains the personal information of many officers and officials who were involved in these processes and further leading to initiation of departmental disciplinary cases against them. Disclosure of such documents is exempted under Rule 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.11.2012 in LPA No, 618/2012 in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. RK. Jain by observing that the information relating to disciplinary action against a person is personal information and the same is exempted from disclosure, as it is the personal information of the person against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated/in progress/concluded. The CVC vide their letter No. CVC/RTI/Misc./10/002 dated 04.04.2013 directed all the CVOs to take note of the above Court order dated 06.11.2012 while dealing and deciding the RTI applications and appeals.
iii: The information sought by the Applicant is non specific.
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 4 of 152.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.09.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636780
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I have filed a complaint through Single Window Cell no. 4065 & 4066 on 28-02-2022 and 24709 on 07-12-2022 in CBSE against baseless chargesheet issued to me under conspiracy as well as biased approach of inquiry in the confirmation matter of Smt. Babita Rani. In this regard, please providing me following information under the RTI Act:-
(i) The copy of complete notes, orders & correspondence of the file under RTI Act wherein the above-mentioned complaint(s)were processed and orders of Competent Authorities have been obtained after suitably severing third party information exempted information, if any.
(ii) The copy of Govt. of India rules and guidelines of the CVC may be given which allow/ permits such proposal/decision of
(a) suppressing the above said complaint(s)or/and inaction on above said complaints and
(b) endorsing no reply to the complainant 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. The letter dated 28.02.2022 and 07.12.2022 of the Applicant are the reminders to his earlier representation dated 24.09.2021.
In response to RTI application dated 03.03.2022 (Case No.CBSED/R/E/22/00561), the Applicant has already been informed vide letter No. CBSE/Vig./F.13582/RTI- IX/CaseNo. 00561/2022/C-1231-1233 dated 01.04.2022 that the submissions made by the Applicant in his representation Page 5 of 15 dated 24.09.2021 had been considered by the Chairman, CBSE and he recorded that the enquiry in process, should take its course. It is evident that wrong facts were placed by the complainants before senior officers.
ii. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, only the information available in the material form is to be supplied. The information sought by the Applicant is not available in the material form.
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636775
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The copy of noting, correspondence portion and enclosures of the file wherein 1st and /or 2nd stage advice from the CVC was obtained by the vigilance unit of the CBSE in r/o undersigned and decision was materialized, after suitably severing third party information/exempted information, if any.
(ii) The copy of rule under which the CVC 1st stage advice papers were not provided to me till date along with copy of notes and orders/documents where proposal/decision for the same was materialized vis-a-vis Govt. rules and guidelines of the CVC reflected in its letter dated 28.09.2000.
(iii) The copy of rule under which the CVC 2nd stage advice was not obtained and/or advice/its papers were bypassed and/or not given to me till date along with copy of notes and orders/documents where proposal/decision for the same was materialized vis-a-vis Govt. rules and guidelines of the CVC reflected in its letter dated 28.09.2000.Page 6 of 15
4.1. Due to non receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. The Applicant in his representation dated 07.12.2022, in departmental disciplinary case inter alia requested to provide the copies of the (i) Copy of records of consultation with CVC on both stages, (ii) Copy of first stage advice of CVC & (iii) Copy of second stage advice of CVC by giving reference of CVC letter No. 99/VGLI66 dated 28.09.2000 In reply to it, the Applicant in the above case was informed vide letter No. CBSE/Vig./F.15013(VII)/2022/C-1955 dated 24.02.2023 that CVC letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.09.2000 referred by him, only the copy of the first stage advice tendered by CVC, to be supplied to the Charged Officer and therefore, a copy of the first stage advice tendered by CVC in the matter vide OM No. 01/EDN/028/483844 dated 09.06.2021 was supplied to him alongwith said letter dated 24.02.2023 and this advice dated 09.06.2021 contained one page advice of CVC.
ii. In the departmental disciplinary case, the Applicant has already been informed through above letter dated 24.02.2023 that the referred CVC letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.09.2000 only provides to supply the first stage advice of CVC which has been provided to him.
It is informed that the first stage advice consultation documents/decisions included vigilance report and personal information of many officers and officials in respect of whom the first stage advice of CVC was sought related to initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings under relevant rules of the Board. The supply of copies of these documents and notesheets relating to first stage advice consultation with CVC for initiating disciplinary proceedings against various officers and officials of the Board as a composite case, for their alleged delinquency contains the personal information of many officers and officials. Disclosure of such document is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as ordered by the Page 7 of 15 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 06.11.2012 in LPA No 618/2012 in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain, by observing that the information relating to disciplinary action against a person is personal information and the same is exempted from disclosure as it is the personal information of the person against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated/in progress/concluded, The CVC vide their letter No. CVC/RTI/Misc/10/002. Dated 04.04.2013 directed all the CVOs to take note of the above Court order dated 06.11.2012 while dealing and deciding the RTI applications and appeals.
iii. As per the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, only the information which is available in the material form is to be supplied. The information and documents sought by the Applicant is not available in the material form.
4.2. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636755
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide me copy of notes and orders with correspondence portion of file where the following RTI applications and their appeals were dealt including all notes and orders, inputs, documents etc. received from Vigilance Cell of CBSE:-
a) CBSED/R/E/22/01381
b) CBSED/R/E/22/00561
c) CBSED/R/E/22/00554
(ii) Please provide me copy of preliminary inquiry report of Shri R. K. Ojha which may contain observations in r/o CBSE officials and senior officers and undersigned in the matter of confirmation of Smt. Babita Rani as already Page 8 of 15 provided to Shri Pawan Grover Section Officer, CBSE retired and Shri Gautam Day, Superintendent and other(s).
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. Reply to these RTI applications and appeals have already been provided to the respective Applicant. The supply of copies of the notes of related RTI applications and appeals would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the officers/officials who dealt these RTI applications/appeals. Disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it does not involve larger public interest.
ii. In reply to an earlier RTI application CBSED/R/E/22/01381 dated 13.05.2022 of the Applicant, it has already been replied to the Applicant vide letter No. CBSE/Vig./F.13582/RTI-IX/Case No. 01381/2022/H-1470 to 1472 dated 10.06.2022 and as per the records available in the office, the Applicant did not submit first appeal against the said reply dated 10.06.2022:-
"The Applicant is informed that there is an ongoing investigation by CBI in the subject.
The information document sought by the Applicant is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it would impede the ongoing investigation. The Applicant is further informed that as per the available records, no preliminary enquiry specifically conducted by CBSE regarding confirmation case of Smt. Babita Rani in the post of Assistant Secretary."
The Applicant is informed that the information sought in the present RTI application is the repetition of earlier RTI application dated 13.05.2022.
It is informed that as per records, the preliminary enquiry report have been supplied to Shri Pawan Grover and Shri Goutam Dey as additional/defence document in the departmental disciplinary proceedings on the request of these two officials by the Inquiring Authority being a quasi judicial authority. As per the records of the inquiry proceedings, the Applicant has not requested the Page 9 of 15 Inquiring Authority to provide copy of this document as additional/defence document in his departmental disciplinary case.
It is further informed that a FIR No. RC2182020A002 dated 23.09.2020 has been filed by CBI office, New Delhi and investigation in the said FIR is in progress. Disclosure of this document is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as supply of this document may impede the process of investigation. This has already been intimated earlier to the Applicant.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.07.2023.
Hearing Proceedings and decision
6. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Gulab Singh, Under Secretary and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Assistant Secretary (Vigilance), attended the hearing in person.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise responses to all the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letters dated 07.07.2023, 09.06.2023. He further submitted that all the RTI applications of the appellant were similar to the RTI applications filed by one Mr. Devender and these have already been decided by the Commission. Additionally, the appellant and Mr. Devender were issued chargesheet and penalty were also imposed upon them by the department. He further stated that the appellant and Mr. Devender filed numerous RTI applications just to harass the department. All the written submissions of the respondent and appellant have been taken on record.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the predominant nature of the queries raised in the instant RTI Application(s) and the amplitude of the arguments Page 10 of 15 stated in the second appeal memos beyond any reasonable doubt suggest sheer angst of the Appellant against the alleged disciplinary case instituted against him. In pursuit of his grievance, the Appellant has largely raised queries that seem like he is seeking for a specific record but in essence seek for interpretation and deduction of the available file notings/records by the CPIO to cull out the requisite explanations and justifications/rule positions etc. and thereby seeking to mortify the CPIO to justify the administrative action/inaction of the public authority, which is not envisaged under the RTI Act. Further, whatever limited scope was apparent by way of ascertaining the probability of parting with specific available information after invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act stands negated by the detailed justification tendered by the CPIO in keeping with the provision of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........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, provide Page 11 of 15 advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the Page 12 of 15 domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) In the above backdrop, the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, is also relevant:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' Similarly, with respect to the Appellant's dissatisfaction in respect of the permissible and available information provided by the CPIO, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within Page 13 of 15 the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
9. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
10. The Appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 17.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
Under Secretary - Admin and Recruitment,
CBSE,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092
2. Deepak Kumar
Page 14 of 15
Sl. No. Second Appeal No.
1. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/645258
2. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/644123
3. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636780
4. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636775
5. CIC/CBSED/A/2023/636755
Page 15 of 15
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)