Central Information Commission
Ira Chopra vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 15 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/642389
IRA CHOPRA ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel and
Training, RTI Cell, North
Block, New Delhi-110001. ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023
Date of Decision : 13/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18/07/2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/08/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2022 seeking information as under:
"1.0 The RTI applications number DOP&T/R/E/22/03497 dated 20.06.2022 and DOP&T/R/E/22/03498 dated 20.06.2022 which has been unlawfully stated to be 1 disposed off by Shri Amit Srivastava, Under Secretary, Appointments Committee of Cabinet vide Letter No. 28/18/2022-EO (ACC) dated 15.07.2022 received on 18.07.2022 through RTI portal is being re-submitted and enclosed to the instant application along-with the following add-on submissions. The requisite information sought in both the RTI applications referenced above is requested to be provided within 48 hours of receipt of instant RTI application."
The contents of the RTI Application dated 20.06.2022 enclosed therewith state as under:
"Please provide information which is sought not only in public interest but also under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, where the undersigned is entitled to Right to Information within the meaning of Section 3, which confers right to all citizens under provisions of this act. The information sought does not fall under any exemptions u/s 8(1)(a) to 8(1)(j), and more importantly 8(1)(h), and not to be stated as under-investigation. The investigation is to be carried out by Magistrate of First Class / Special Judge and not by the Establishment Officer, for which the petitioner / complainant will be appearing in person before the Magistrate of First Class / Special Judge, as laid down in section 197 of the CrPC 1973.
Reference: Previous application for prosecution sanction of a Board Level Appointee for the perusal of Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji being the Chairperson of Appointments Committee of Cabinet, was addressed to Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji duly receipted by o/o Establishment Officer, DoPT on 23.12.2021 for & on his behalf. Final decision for the sanction order was & is to be taken by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on basis on proposal to be initiated by 0/o Establishment Officer.
Backdrop:
Duly receipted on 23.12.2021, Application No. ANK/CONF/2021/110 dated 21.12.2021 seeking prosecution sanction against a Board Level appointee of Appointments Committee of the cabinet - Shri Anil Kumar Pathak, Board Level Executive, Member (Planning) / Member (HR), Airports Authority of India, was addressed to Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji, Chairman -
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet through Establishment Officer with the header - "Application for sanction of criminal prosecution under section 197 of the CrPC 1973 against an appointee of Appointments Committee of the cabinet - Shri 2 Anil Kumar Pathak, Board Level Executive, Member (Planning) / Member (HR) Airports Authority of India", and sent vide speed post no ED041178997IN dated 21.12.2021 (enclosed) to Establishment Officer.
Vide para 31 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in the matter of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another, AIR 2012 SC 1185, it is stated - "the aforementioned guidelines are in conformity with the law laid down by this Court that while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the Competent Authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offence. The Competent Authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations made against the public servant are true."
Vide para 27 of the same order, it is also stated - "grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi-judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant."
Public Interest:
(a) If a Board Level Official, who is an appointee by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet indulgences in criminal acts punishable under CrPC / IPC, and is further allowed to do so, then the entire governmental machinery will be put to halt. There will be anarchy and chaos in the country. If those whose duty is to comply with directions, to act within the circumscribed limits of rules and regulations, act otherwise under whims and fancies upon self-discretion, without abiding to laid down rules, then the rule of law will be surely set at naught.
(b) Under the RTI Act, providing information is the rule and denial a rarest of rare exception. Public interest in disclosure of the above information will be served by unveiling and unravelling the irregularities and/or violation of prescribed rules & procedures by the government servant against whom prosecution sanction has been sought / prayed and will aid in improving transparency & accountability in a governmental set up for which the RTI Act, 2005 was enacted by an act of parliament. You will certainly agree that the true purpose of RTI Act gets defeated, if the information is held back by the public authority on one false pretext or other.3
(c) Even otherwise, there is no requirement in the Act of establishing any public interest for information to be obtained by the sovereign Citizen; nor is there any requirement to establish larger public interest, unless an exemption is held to be valid, to be supported by cogent lawful reasons thereof.
(d) The law categorically states that no reasons shall be required to be supplied by the applicant. Truth remains the Truth and it is not important who accesses it. If there is a larger public interest in disclosing a Truth, it is not relevant who gets it revealed.
(e) Hence, proactive disclosure is requested and PIO is requested not to take shelter under section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j), 8(1)(h) or for that matter 8(1)(e) or any other sections of RTI Act 2005. Further, notwithstanding anything contained in Official Secrets Act 1923(19 of 1923), nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority needs to allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests, and public interest is evident in the instant case.
(f) Hon'ble CIC has time and again held that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act mandates that even where disclosure of information is protected by the exemptions u/s 8(1) of the RTI Act, if public interest is there, it should be provided.
For the over said cogent reasons, PIO is requested to please obtain and provide the following from 0/o Establishment Officer, DoPT:
1. Information on the status of the sanction order against application stated in backdrop, explicitly stating whether the sanction has been denied. The said information is requested in binary (yes /no ) format only.
2. Certified copy of "sine qua non self-contained para wise (para 1.0 to 39.0) reasoned and seasoned Speaking order" by reduction of "each" para of the application stated in the backdrop above, in writing, by assigning cogent reasons thereof, in a manner known to the establishment, law, administrative manual and the benchmark set in the Code of Criminal Procedures 1973 / CrPC, may please be provided, if at all the sanction has been denied.
3. Certified copy and for information thereof of the "maximum allowable time period" prescribed under statutes / as known to the establishment /Establishment Officer for grant of prosecution sanction by the appointing authority from the date of receipt of the application / proposal by the appointing authority.4
4. Date on which the proposal for the prosecution sanction was put up to the appointing authority Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi ji, Chairman --
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.
5. Copy of the noting sheet of the proposal stated in 4 above.
6. Cut-off date on which the "prosecution sanction order" will be provided or is being provided.
7. Please indicate the norm regarding the time taken to attend an application seeking prosecution sanction order.
8. As stated in the backdrop, it is a settled position that investigation in the matter brought out in the application dated 21.12.2021 was beyond jurisdictional area of the Establishment Officer and was to be sin-qua-non carried by the Magistrate of First Class / Special Judge and not by the Establishment Officer for which the petitioner / complainant will be appearing in person before the Magistrate of First Class / Special Judge.
The said application for prosecution sanction was merely to aid the appointing authority to assess / establish prima facie the commission of offence. PIO is thus requested to obtain and provide the copy of the proposal / noting sheet by which the 0/o Establishment Officer prima facie established commission of the offence. The hackneyed, ritualistic expression that - matter is under investigation, may kindly be best avoided, in the interest of truth & transparency in a governmental setup.
9. Accompaniment to the above, it is also submitted that after receipt of information and certified copies under this RTI application, the undersigned also ADDITIONALLY intends to carry out an actual inspection of records and obtain additional certified photocopies of records identified by me during the inspection. I may be permitted such inspection, as permitted under Section 4 (f) of RTI Act. 2005. Application for inspection of records may please be read as part and parcel of this application. This RTI itself may also please be treated as application for the inspection of records under the provisions of Section 10 (1) Severability and other relevant sections of RTI Act. 2005."
5Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with non-receipt of a reply within 48 hours of filing the RTI Application, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Rajeev Lochan, US & CPIO along with Vijay Kumar Darak, Dy. Director present in person.
The CPIO submitted that although the precise nature of the information sought for by the Complainant, however, she was provided with the following reply on 03.08.2022:
"The administrative Ministry in respect of Board level officers of the Airports Authority of lndia (AAI) is the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Further, Rule3 (3) of the Allocation of Business Rules 1961 (copy enclosed) provides as under:
Where sanction of the prosecution of any person for any offence is required to be accorded:
(a) If he is Government servant, by the Department which is the Cadre Controlling authority for the service of which he is a member' and in any other case, by the Department in which he was working at the time of commission of the alleged offence;
(b) If he is a public servant other than a government servant, appointed by the Central Government, by the Department administratively concerned with the organization in which he was working at the time of commission of the alleged offence; and
(c) In any other case, by the Department which administers the Act under which the alleged offence is committed. Hence, your representation/application dated 21.11.2021 was forwarded to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, vide this Secretariat's OM dated 10.01.2022 (copy enclosed).
A copy of the guidelines issued vide communication No.107/8/99-AVal dated 27.10.1999 is enclosed. The same is also available on DoPT website athttps://documents. doptcirculars.nic.in/D2/D02ser/16032021vN2ds.pdf The information sought by you may be available with the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Thus, your RTI applications Reg. No. DOP&T/R/E/22/03497 & 6 DOP&T/R/E/22/03498) dated 22.06.2022 were also forwarded to the CPIO, the Ministry of Civil Aviation for providing information directly.
Furthermore, the RTI application has also been sent to CPIO and Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi (with a copy of RTI application) - for providing information directly to the applicant."
Decision The Complainant observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the Complainant filed the instant complaint on the grounds that she did not receive a reply to the instant RTI Application within 48 hours as envisaged under the proviso to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
Now, it is pertinent to note that the Complainant vide the instant RTI Application did not seek for any information but narrated at length her grouse against non- receipt of desired information on two of her earlier RTI Applications filed on 20.06.2022, containing equally cumbersome contents, referring to prosecution sanction against Anil Kumar Pathak, Board Level Executive, Member (Planning)/Member (HR), Airports Authority of India, and raising a host of queries about the action taken on her request for prosecution sanction.
Now, there is nothing on record to explain as to how the appointment of or the prosecution sanction against Anil Kumar Pathak, a third party, affects the life and liberty of the Complainant. Moreover, her RTI Application(s) do not even qualify under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as being largely hypothetical in nature and does not conform to the word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012.
Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission finds the instant complaint bereft of merit.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 8