Central Information Commission
Mr.T S Raju vs Ministry Of Railways on 17 April, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000348
Date of Hearing : April 17, 2012
Date of Decision : April 17, 2012
Parties: (heard through videoconference)
Appellant
Shri T.S. Raju
Radha Madahavam
New No. 13, Mangala Lakshmi Flat
Vegavathi Street, Rajaji Nagar
Villivakkam
Chennai 600 049
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Southern Railway
Headquarters Office
Chennai
Represented by: Ms. Suryalakshmi, PIO and Shri Sundereshan, APIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000348
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 09.06.2011) with the PIO, Southern Railway, Chennai seeking following information in respect of a charge memorandum dated May, 2011 issued to him based on certain report of the office of the CVO, Southern Railway, Madras:
"...copies of all documents, communication, draft charge memo sent from CVO/MAS resulted in issue of the above charge memo."
2. The PIO on 08.07.2011 declined the disclosure of information to the Applicant on the ground that the DAR proceeding in the matter was still current. He cited exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTIAct. The Applicant, being aggrieved with the PIO's reply, filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority on 11.08.2011. The Appellate Authority, through his order dated 07.09.2011, upheld the PIO' reply. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition before the Commission on 23.11.2011 challenging the Respondents' decision.
Decision
3. During the hearing, the Respondents informed the Commission that the Appellant here wants to obtain a copy of investigation report based on which the charge sheet was served on him in respect of the misuse of his privilege pass by him (Appellant). The Respondents explained that the said investigation report contains several sensitive information (like, names of the witnesses examined, their statement, name of the Vigilance Inspector etc.) which are difficult to sever from the main report as they constitute major part of the report, and which if allowed to be disclosed might expose the life of the persons/officers, who contributed in the investigation process, to danger. The Respondents, however, when asked, told the Commission that the enquiry officer, after completing the enquiry in the instant case on 24.01.2012, has submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority for him to take a decision in the matter and to forward the same to CVC for clearance.
4. After hearing the submissions above and on perusing the records, I find myself in agreement with the Respondents that disclosure of complete investigation report might put the lives of the persons, who contributed in the investigation process, at risk. This category of information is barred under Section 8(1)
(g) of the RTIAct. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no disclosure with regard to these details to the Appellant. Nonetheless, considering the Appellant's case here, it is directed that the Disciplinary Authority, with whom the present matter, according to the Respondents, is pending for decision for several months, take a view in the matter and forward the same to the CVC for clearance by mid May, 2012. It is, also directed that once the final view is taken in the present matter and after getting the clearance from the CVC, the PIO should allow the inspection of relevant records-- barring those which attracts exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTIAct--to the Appellant and to provide him with copies of documents, he wishes to obtain from inspected records, free of cost, within 15 days of receipt of clearance from the CVC, under intimation to the Commission.
5. Appeal is disposed off with the above direction and recommendation.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri T.S. Raju Radha Madahavam New No. 13, Mangala Lakshmi Flat Vegavathi Street, Rajaji Nagar Villivakkam Chennai 600 049
2. Public Information Officer/Dy. CVO Southern Railway Headquarters Office Vigilance Branch Chennai 600 003
3. Officer incharge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.