Central Information Commission
Niranjan Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 11 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CCITL/A/2021/136217
Niranjan Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Office of the Pr. Commissioner
Of Income Tax, RTI Cell,
Aayakar Bhawan, 5-Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226010, Uttar Pradesh .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/11/2022
Date of Decision : 24/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 07/04/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 06/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/08/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"The order dated 15.01.2021 under rule 11 (vii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was received by me by speed post on 27.01.2021. In regard to the same please supply me the following documents/ Information under Section 7 of RTI Act, 2005:-1
1. In Para 8 of the said order dated 15.01.2021 it is mentioned that a number of opportunities were given to the charged officer through issue of notices at all available addresses on record. Please supply me the authenticated copies of all such notices along with the proof and date of dispatch.
2. Again in the said order in Para 8 it is mentioned that notices issued to the charged officer returned unserved with the postal remarks. Please supply me the authenticated copies of such unserved notices along with the copy of the envelope with the postal remarks.
3. Again in the aforesaid order in Para 6 it is mentioned that the inquiry officer submitted a report dated 27.08.2021. Please supply me the authenticated copies of the said report dated 27.08.2020.
4. In the aforesaid order in Para 7 it is mentioned that the copy of the I0 report was then sent to the charged officer vide office letter dated 24.09.2020 through speed post at all the addresses available on records. Please supply me the service report along, with speed post receipt copies.
5. That whether you received the following document from the CBI;-
(a) CFSL report of Handwriting dated 30.05.2016 (b) Certified copies of DVR (c) CFSL report of the voice identification cum transaction memo dated 29.06.2015
(d) CBI letter number 2146/RC0062015A0007 dated 30.04.2015 requesting for Prosecuting sanction and or initiation' of disciplinary proceedings along with copies of enclosures. (e) If the above documents mentioned in this PARA 5 have been received, please supply the copies of the same.
7. It is also requested that in addition to the above the copies of following documents also be provided to me at the earliest so that I may be able to file suitable appeal under 23 (ii) of CCS CCA Rules 1965 (a) Copies of the order sheets of I.O and P.O's File (b) Copies of all notices and correspondence sent and received by LO. (c) Copies of all the relied upon documents relied upon by PO available in inquiry officers file. (d) Copies of all the statements recorded by I.O. (d) Copies of Speed post receipts along with dispatch numbers of all the correspondence dispatched by I.O, P.O and Disciplinary Authority. (e) Any other document in the file of I.O, P.O or the DA evidencing any Communication being sent to me or any other person in my case.
7. Please allow inspection of the file of the I.O, P.O and Disciplinary Authority and of the prosecution sanction file so that I may be enabled to file the appeal against my removal order."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.03.2021 stating as under:
2"1. As regards point no.1, please find enclosed herewith duly authenticated copy of notices issued to you alongwith with the proof and date of dispatch.
2. As regards point no.2, please find enclosed herewith duly authenticated copy of notices issued to you which returned un-served alongwith the copy of envelop with the postal remarks.
3. As regards point no.3 please find enclosed the authenticated copy ID's report submitted to this office vide letter dt.27/08/2021.
4. As desired vide point 4, please find enclosed herewith the copy of letter dt.24/09/2020 vide which the 10's report was sent to you alongwith the postal receipt.
5. As regards documents received from CBI, it is to intimate that as per CBI letter dated 30/04/2015, the CBI report is treated as confidential & no reference thereof can be made to departmental proceedings. Hence, the same cannot be provided by the undersigned.
7(a) 7(b) 7(c) 7(d) 7(e) Please find enclosed herewith the desired copy of Order sheet from page 1 to 16. (Annexure-5) Information sought for vide point no.7(b) is already provided under the point 1 in Annexure-1. The documents relied upon by the IO are duly mentioned in the IO's report being provided in annexure -3 under the point 3 above. IO's report as already provided under point no.3 as annexcure-3 itself contains all the statement recorded by the IO. Information sought for vide this point stands already provided under point 1 to 4 above.
7. As regards inspection of records of IO's, PO's and Disciplinary Authority, the applicant needs to file a separate application before the Ld. Pr .Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow who is the competent authority to take decision on this issue."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.04.2021. FAA's order dated 06.05.2021 rejected the contention of the Appellant that his RTI Application qualifies under life and liberty clause and further held as under:
"ii) As regards this ground raised by the appellant vide point no.2 that the documents provided by the CPIO in Annexure 1 to 4 along with his communication letter dated 02/03/2021 have not been page numbered and difference in page number is indicative that information have been provided on selective basis, it is submitted by the CPIO vide letter dt.22/04/2021 that majority of information called for by the appellant belong to the file of the IO and the whole file of the IO itself are already duly page numbered and so, 2ND time page numbering at any end might distort the actual numbering of page and it's set placement on record. I 3 find logic and force in CPIO's view with the considered opinion that any more page numbering hardly had any material impact.
iii) As regard this contention of the appellant, raised vide point 3 of the appeal memo, the CPIO is the first level of Public information Officer and entitled to provide information under the RTI Act, 2005 while the undersigned is the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the CPIO has also already provided copies of documents from records available with him. However, as the desired information is already provided by the CPIO to the extent available barring confidential document, I find this issue as no more relevant but still if the inspection is sought and as the CPIO has already made available the documents, the CPIO may allow inspection of documents already provided as available and can be disclosed except confidential document.
iv) In this case, the CPIO has contended that such information is specifically restricted by CBI being of confidential nature. Further it is also a fact that there was full scale disciplinary proceedings held in the case of applicant and IO has also conducted enquiry as contended by the applicant himself. The IO has also given due opportunity to the applicant before concluding enquiry on the basis of overall facts. Further no specific/particular reference of the CBI report was highlighted by the applicant. The CPIO has also confirmed the same. Moreover, as per report, the CPIO has already made available IO's report etc.
v) As regards the objection raised vide point no 5 that the information asked for vide point no.7 (b) has not been fully provided, the CPIO submitted in his report dt. 22/04/21 that all the information called for by the applicant have already been provided vide letter dt. 02/03/2021 and no more information remain pending at his end and that appellant has failed to specifically point out as to which information has not been provided by the CPIO. Accordingly, this objection of the appellant is hereby rejected due to not being specific.
vi) On perusal of letter of CPIO dated 2/3/21, it is noted that desired information was already provided to applicant except confidential information and as such, I find this issue needs no further interference.
vii) On perusal of letter dated 2/3/21 of CPIO, it is noted that information as available was provided to applicant except confidential information. In view of the above facts, I find no merit in contention of the appellant.
viii) As regards the demand of ITI's report by the appellant vide point no. viii of the appeal memo, the CPIO has submitted in his report dt. 22/04/2021 that the quoted page no. 34 & 42 are not the ITI's report but are the envelopes containing notices sent to the applicant returned back. Hence, it calls for no interference.
ix) As reported by CPIO, it is not maintainable in appeal due to not being the part of original application under the RTI Act,2005 dt.22/03/2021.In any case as 4 contended by CPIO, desired information to the extent available and can be provided was already made available to the applicant."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
5Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Neeraj Srivastava, ITO & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant reiterated at length the grounds of the Second Appeal as mentioned above highlighting on the arguments that he was not provided the reply within 48 hours of filing the RTI Application even as his case falls under life 6 and liberty clause of Section 7 of the RTI Act; the IO report provided was selective as many documents and enclosures were withheld, statement of witnesses not provided; CPIO denied the inspection of the disciplinary authority file without citing any exemption clause of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submissions stating as under:
"2.1 As regard the procurement of information within 48 hours, it is to submit that the provisions of section 7(I) of the RTI Act, 2005 state that where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within 48 hours and as such, the application so filed under this exceptional clause of the RTI Act, 2005 should itself demonstrate such concerns of life or liberty of the applicant and there should be sufficient documentary evidences attached with the said application to prove it. Thus. being exceptional clause, it cannot be exercised on and check basis just because it is available in the RTI, Act, 2005. In the instant case, there was nothing as such circumstances revealing such an emergency. Moreover, the information sought for by the applicant vide his application dated 22.02.2021 itself revealed that the requisition was of administrative nature of information which, too were provided to him much before the prescribed time line.
2.2 As regards the allegation that the copying fee was charged higher side as compared to the documents supplied to the applicant, it is to submit that from the period i.e February, 2021 onwards, the deadly covid-19 was on its wide spread across the country and there were threat to life in all areas of work and under these circumstances, in order to ensure procurement of the desired information and to avoid any kind of procedural delay, a lumsump amount of Rs.200/-.
seemingly close to the estimated cost of photocopy of documents to be supplied, was asked to deposit.
3. As regards the concerns raised by the appellant vide point 4 of the appeal memo, I would like to reproduce the information sought vide point 4 the said application dt.22/02/2021:
'In the aforesaid order in Para 7 it is mentioned that the copy of the I0 report was then sent to the charged officer vide letter dated 24.09.2020 through speed post at all the addresses available on records. Please supply me the service report alongwith speed post receipt copies.' 7 From the above it is very clear that information sought for was the service report alongwith speed post receipt copies whereby the under reference IO's report was sent to the applicant and in response, the under reference letter dt.24/09/2020 duly specifying the despatch number on Despatch Register alongwith speed post receipts were provided to the applicant vide this office letter dt.22/04/2021. Now the question arises as to how can it be a matter of appeal which was not a part of under reference RTI application dated 22.02.2021 and hence, it was not given any cognizance in the under reference appellate order dated 06.05.2021.
4. As regards the concerns raised by the appellant vide point no.4 of the appeal memo, point (iii) of the appellate order dated 06.05.2021 is reiterated:
'As regard this contention of the appellant. raised vide point 3 of the appeal memo, the CPIO is the first level of Public information Officer and entitled to provide information under the RTI Act 2005 while the undersigned is the appellant authority. As a matter of fact, the CPIO has also already provided copies of documents from records available with him. However, as the desired information is already provided by the CPIO to the extent available barring confidential document, I find this issue as no more relevant but still if the inspection is sought and as the CPIO has already made available the documents. the CP10 may allow inspection of documents already provided as available and can be disclosed except confidential documents'
5. As regards the concerns raised by the appellant vide point 5 of the appeal memo, it is to submit that all the information sought vide RTI application dated 22.02.2021 were provided to the applicant vide this office letter dated 02.03.2021 and regarding allegation that it was discussed in the under reference appellate order dated 06.05.2021, it was not ascertainable and was a failure on the part of the appellant to specify as to which of the documents or information. called for in the RTI application dated 22.02.2021 were not provided.
6. As regards the contention of the appellant vide point no.5 of the appeal memo the appellate authority vide point no.(iv) of its appellate order dated 06.05.2021 has already decided the issue as under:
'In this case, the CP/0 has contended that such information is specifically restricted by CBI being of confidential nature. Further it is also a fact that there was full scale disciplinary proceedings held in the case of applicant and 1.0 has also conducted enquiry as contended by the applicant himself The I0 has also given due opportunity to the applicant before concluding enquiry on the basis of overall facts Further. no specific/particular reference 8 of the CBI report was highlighted by the applicant. The CPIO has also confirmed the same. Moreover, as per report, the CPIO has already made available las report etc.'..."
In addition to this, the CPIO upon the insistence of the Appellant agreed to resend a copy of the complete IO report to him and reiterated that beyond this, he is not in possession of any additional information than what has been already provided.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the instant matter is not as much about seeking access to information as much it is about vindicating the Appellant's grievance against the disciplinary action conducted against him. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the CPIO has attempted to provide the available information and the FAA has issued a comprehensive order giving out the rationale for upholding the CPIO's reply.
Further, it is pertinent to note that the information sought for by the Appellant or his dissatisfaction with the records that have been provided is not very specific, and yet the CPIO has attempted to provide a point-wise cogent reply to the queries raised in the RTI Application. The Appellant under garb of seeking for information has expressed conjecture across the length and breadth of the instant appeal as well as in the contents of the RTI Application to satisfy his apprehensions regarding the disciplinary action taken against him. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that 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 the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."9
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) The Appellant shall also appreciate the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."10
Similarly, it will not be out of place to quote the Preamble of the RTI Act which provides as under:
"And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;.."
Adverting to the foregoing observations and discussion, the Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter.
However, as a matter of limited relief, as agreed upon by the CPIO during the hearing, the Commission directs the CPIO to resend a copy of the complete available IO report as per the provisions of the RTI Act to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, if there are any additional fees paid by the Appellant that is in excess of the copies provided to him, the excess amount be returned to the Appellant by the CPIO through appropriate mode of payment within the same timeline as above.
A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 11