Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Shri. Ravinder Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 10 July, 2009

                Central Information Commission
                            2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
                        Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
                                Website: www.cic.gov.in


             (Adjunct to Decision No.318/IC(A)/2006 dated 3/10/2006)

                                                           Decision No.4156/IC(A)/2009
                                                            F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00711
                                                             Dated, the 10th July, 2009

Name of the Appellant:                  Shri. Ravinder Kumar

Name of the Public Authority:           Union Public Service Commission
         i
Facts:

1. In our Decision No.318/IC(A)/2006 dated 3rd October 2006, the following Decision notice was issued:

ƒ "The information sought relate to note sheets of the files dealing with disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty. Under the law, there are established procedures that are followed to ensure justice to the alleged offenders. The relevant details form the basis for formulating advice given by the UPSC to the concerned administrative Ministry, a copy of which is also supplied to the affected officer. The revealing of the note sheets containing the remarks and opinion of various officials on the matter of imposition of penalty, would identify their names, which might endanger their lives. The disclosure of such information is therefore barred u/s 8(1)(e) & (h) of the Act. In view of this, the decision of the appellate authority is upheld.
ƒ As such, there is no denial of information to the appellant as the CPIO and the appellate authority have given a detailed response to the appellant. Moreover, there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of information relating to the prosecution of alleged offenders under the Civil Services conduct Rules."

2. Being not satisfied with the above decision, the appellant submitted a review petition before the Commission, which was examined and rejected. The i "If you don't ask, you don't get." - Mahatma Gandhi 1 appellant was accordingly communicated vide the Commission's letter dated April 19, 2007.

3. Subsequently, the appellant challenged the Commission's decision before the High Court of Delhi, which has passed the following order:

¾ "The prayer made by the petitioner for copies of the note sheets was rejected by the UPSC. The appeal filed before the appellate authority was also dismissed on 19.09.2006. The petitioner has thereafter, stated to have filed an appeal before the CIC which was also dismissed on 03.10.2006. The petitioner who appears in person submits that the CIC has now given a decision in January, 2007, Shri. Pyare Lal Verma Vs. Ministry of Railways by virtue of which the CIC has held that the note sheets form part of the file and public authorities should give copies of the same. The petitioner in person prays that this matter may be remanded back to CIC to enable the CIC to hear the parties afresh in the light of the aforestated Full Bench judgment. Counsel for the respondents have no objection. Consequently, taking into consideration the stand of the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the CIC to issue notice to the parties and thereafter pass an order in the matter.

Needles to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the CIC, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with the law.

¾ With these directions the present writ petition stands disposed of.

(WP( C )No.4374/2007)

4. In compliance with the Court's order, notices were issued to both the parties for the hearing held on 9/7/2009. The following were present:

      Appellant:           Sh. Ravinder Kumar

      Respondents:         Sh. Y.P. Gupta, CPIO & Dy. Secretary
                           Sh. Kamal Bhagat, Jt. Secretary
                           Sh. R.K. Sinha, J.S.
                           Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate


5. The appellant reiterated his earlier plea for providing access to the note sheets containing the details of remarks and observations made by various officials of the respondent, in the matter of disciplinary action taken against the appellant. In particular, he stated that the Commission has allowed disclosure of the file notings in different cases. Therefore, he should also be provided the copies of note sheets as asked for by him.

2

6. The CPIO reiterated its earlier stand and maintained that the note sheets asked for pertain to the information of different departments and offices in the matter of disciplinary action against the appellant, the disclosure of which is not in public interest. Hence, the requested information mainly, the note sheets containing the opinion and advices rendered by various officials cannot be disclosed, as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

Decision:

7. The information asked for relate to the file notings containing the views and opinions of various officials, who have contributed to the process of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the charged officer. While such an action is taken by a public authority against its employee is largely in the public interest, the request for disclosure of the details by the charged official is mainly for promotion of personal interest. It is accepted that the note sheets of a file are covered under the definition of "information" and, therefore, a CPIO is free to invoke section 8(1) of the Act for denial of information for which valid justification has to be provided.

8. In the context of the disciplinary proceeding, which is initiated in the public interest as per the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, the CPIO has justly invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the Act for denial of access to the file notings containing opinion and advices rendered by the officials of the respondent.

9. In view of this, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner ii Authenticated true copy:

(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Ravinder Kumar, IPS, Room No.601, GOI's MESS, PHQ, Shimla -
171 002.

ii "All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle 3

2. Shri. K.M. Shahid, JS & CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069.

3. Sh. D.K. Samantaray, Addl. Secretary & Appellate Authority, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110

069. 4