Central Information Commission
Sheela Raj vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 13 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICARH/A/2023/623125
Dr. Sheela Raj ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
(ICAR) Hqrs., New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024
Date of Decision : 11.06.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.02.2023
PIO replied on : 07.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 29.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 28.04.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "Certified true copy of the preliminary investigation report submitted to ICAR, HQs by the committee constituting Dr. S.M. Palve, Vigilance Officer, CICR, Nagpur and Shri A.A Goswami, Sr Administrative Officer, CICR, Nagpur.
2. Certified true copy of the complaint letter from Director, ICAR-CIRCOT to ICAR, HQs as mentioned in the above reference letter.
3. Certified true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 03/11/2018 at ICAR-CIRCOT.
4. Certified true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 19/11/2018 at ICAR-CIRCOT.
5. Certified true copies of all the correspondences between the committee and ICAR, HQS & ICAR-CIRCOT in the said matter at reference.
6. Certified true copies of all documents/ orders/ correspondences between Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, GOI with ICAR HQS & ICAR- CIRCOT in the said matter at reference."Page 1 of 5
The CPIO & Under Secretary (Vig.-II), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi vide letter dated 07.03.2023 replied as under:-
"Point No. 1, 2, 5 & 6:- Information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 3 & 4: - Information pertains to ICAR- CIRCOT, Mumbai.
Points 5 & 6 information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2023 stated as under:-
"Xx Xx Whereas I have carefully gone through the appeal and the issue raised therein. It is observed that the appeal has been preferred due to non-receipt of information from CPIO (Vig.II). The applicant had sought information primarily on the following aspect, which were related to vigilance files dealing with a complaint against the applicant.
True Copies of the documents in the file dealing with a vigilance complaint against her.
As regards to this, here, the decision of CIC vide No. CIC/SB/A/2015/00649 dated 08.02.2017 in Shri. Satya Vijay Singh Vs. CVC is referred to. Here, the CVC has disposed of a similar appeal and reiterated its earlier decision in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617dated 16.09.2009, where the Commission has held that:
"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-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance.Page 2 of 5
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.
In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act."
Moreover, in recent hearings by CIC in Appeal no CIC/ICARH/C/2021/612430, Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs CPIO, ICAR whereby, among other points, the applicant had also sought certified copy of all documents contained in vigilance files, and the sought information was denied by CPIO(Vig.) under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the CIC vide order dated 30.08.2022, had upheld the decision of CPIO(Vig.).
Hence, the sought information is denied under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: 1. Shri Neeraj Tanwar, CPIO and US (Vigilance)
2. Shri Naveen Kumar, Sr AO The Appellant stated that the information requested was required to defend her own case which was denied deliberately without any cogent reasons/ justifications. She further stated that the case regarding which information was sought by her was kept pending since more than 5 years without any finality resulting in impediment to her career advancement. The committee comprising of Dr. S.M. Palve, Vigilance Officer, CICR, Nagpur and Shri A.A Goswami, Sr Administrative Officer, CICR, Nagpur had called her for inquiry on 03.11.2018 and 19.11.2018. Section 8 (1) (g) applied by the FAA was inapplicable to this matter as it is used only for the matters pertaining to law enforcement or security of the nation.
The Respondents stated that the issues pertaining to which inquiry was conducted is still sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court hence the Disciplinary Authority had kept the inquiry in the matter on hold as on date. However, during the hearing he clarified that although Inquiry report referred in the RTI application was received by them wherein no adverse observations Page 3 of 5 are made. However, the matter has not attained finality as decision is not taken as yet.
He further stated that the FAA while relying on the decisions of the Commission in Shri. Satya Vijay Singh Vs. CVC CIC/SB/A/2015/00649 dated 08.02.2017 and Amit Kumar Srivastava vs CPIO, ICAR CIC/ICARH/C/2021/612430 decided on 30,08.2022 held that the information also stands exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005. He added that 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.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission finds that blanket denial of information u/s 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not justified as the information is required by the Appellant in her own case. It is the apprehension of the Respondent that disclosure of information can result in the employee gaining access to the identities of those recording the notes to pursue personal vendetta/ retribution against such officers. This can very well be addressed by redacting/ blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author.
It is observed that as per Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 all such information relating to the name and designation of officers in the note sheets/ correspondences could be severed to provide the remaining information. In this context, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 7/10/2013 [W.P. (C) 4079/2013 Union Public Service Commission vs. G S Sandhu] wherein it was held as under:
"11. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified. Though, ultimately it is for the members of the UPSC who are to accept or reject such notings, this can hardly be disputed that the notings do play a vital role in the advice which UPSC ultimately renders to the concerned department. Therefore, the person against whom an adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for an adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometime even Page 4 of 5 harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting. Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of KVS v. CIC and Anr. W.P.(C) 6892/2009 dated 15.09.2009 held that:
"The only objection raised by the petitioner against the supply of statement of witnesses was under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said provision stipulates that information disclosure of which would endanger life and physical safety of any person or identity, the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement and security purposes need not be supplied. The Information Commissioner keeping in mind Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has directed that the name of the witnesses need not be disclosed to the respondent No.2.
In fact the order passed by the Information Commissioner seeks to rely upon section 10, which permits withholding of certain portions of information by applying severability principle. The order of the Information Commissioner takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner."
In the light of the above observations, the Commission directs Shri Neeraj Tanwar, CPIO and US (Vigilance) to re-examine the RTI application and provide to the Appellant a revised point wise response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)