Central Information Commission
Chandranshu Mehta vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 October, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/C/2020/112205
Chandranshu Mehta ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan,
GPO Complex, Block A, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
.... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/09/2021
Date of Decision : 01/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2020
CPIO replied on : 02/03/2020
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/03/2020
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2020 seeking the following information:1
1. Copy of the 'Office Memorandum' No. 019/EDN/015 dated 11.06.2019.
2. Copy of the Action-Taken with Complete File Noting including Internal and External Correspondence on Complaint No. 148667/2020/vigilance-7 The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 02.03.2020 as under:
Being dissatisfied with the denial of information on point no.2 of the RTI Application, the complainant filed a complaint to the Commission.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: P K Mohanty, OSD & Rep. of CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Commission took note of the written submissions of the Complainant sent prior to the hearing where he has challenged the denial of the information on the grounds that the averred complaint was filed by him and in this regard he has also relied on a decision of a coordinate bench in P Praveen Kumar vs. Central Vigilance Commission dated 22.04.2019 to argue that information related to the applicants own investigation cannot be denied as being fiduciary or under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
The Rep. of the CPIO narrated the action taken on the averred complaint to state that at the relevant time, the report of the Ministry of Culture was awaited and therefore no information could have been provided.2
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information was denied to the Complainant under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act on the grounds that the vigilances noting(s) are held in confidence and cannot be disclosed. Now, the reliance placed by the Complainant on the decision of the Commission in Praveen Kumar's case is distinguishable by facts as the subject matter of the instant RTI Application is a complaint filed by the Complainant while the subject matter of Praveen Kumar's case was an investigation carried out against Praveen Kumar himself and the question of existence of a fiduciary relationship between the public authority and the officers who had tended their notings in the investigation records was under consideration.
Nonetheless, in the considered view of this bench, if the identity of the officers tendering the vigilance noting(s) were to be protected in consonance with Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the CPIO could have redacted the name and identifying particulars of such officers as per Section 10 of the RTI Act instead of a square denial of the information.
The CPIO is advised to take note of the above observations while dealing with similar requests for information in the future and to uphold the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission is not inclined to initiate any further action in the matter under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act for the absence of any malafides apparent in the denial of the information by the CPIO. In this regard, attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, 3 incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
With the above observations and advisory, the Complaint is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4