Central Information Commission
Shri M.P. Dixit vs Income Tax Department, Patna on 31 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000097
Appellant : Shri M.P. Dixit
Public Authority : Income Tax Department, Patna
(through Shri Yogender Dubey, Joint CIT,
Patna)
Date of Hearing : 31.3.2010
Date of Decision : 31.3.2010
FACTS :
The appellant herein is an Advocate by profession. Vide RTI application dated 1.4.2009, he had sought information on 11 paras running into two and a half closely type pages. The crux of the matter is that the appellant had requested for copies of proposals and Minutes of DPC held on 18.6.2001 for promotion to the post of (i) Inspector; (ii) AO, Grade-III; (iii) OS & (iv) Sr Tax Assistant as also proposals and Minutes of the Review DPC held on 15th/16th-10-2001 for the above ranks.
2. Vide order dated 27.7.2009, the CPIO had refused to disclose information on the ground that the matter was pending in CAT, Patna u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The AA had passed a detailed order dated 31.8.2009 upholding the decision of CPIO in which notice was also taken of the fact that the matter had since been decided by the CAT.
3. The present appeal is directed against the above orders.
4. Heard on 31.3.2010. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by Shri Dubey. He submits a written representation dated 26.3.2010 signed by CCIT, Patna, which is taken on record. It is his forceful submission that the DPC proceedings are confidential in nature and are meant for departmental purposes only and the appellant being third party, has no right to obtain copy thereof. He has also drawn my attention to the representation filed by CCIT, Patna, wherein the entire factual matrix of the case has been recited. It is his say that the matter in hand involves no public interest and, therefore, no information is disclosable to the appellant. Para 07 of the representation is reproduced below :-
"7. The information asked for was omnibus and vexatious in nature. It related to a DPC matter in which interest of several officers were involved and disclosure of information would harm the inter-personal relationship in the organization. The material which was required by the Hon'ble CAT for disposal of the case (which might have served purpose of the applicant) was supplied to the CAT and there was no rationale of parting with such important information related to a very important aspect of information of Govt to the appellant. Hence, the contention of the applicant that supply of information is helpful for getting further justice to his client has no merit. Further, there was no public interest to be served by disclosure of this information pertaining to a matter pending before the Cat. It would only meet the requirements of an interested party which in this case was the appellant himself."
A bare reading of the above passage would indicate that the CCIT has objected to the disclosure of DPC proceedings etc primarily on the ground that this would enable the appellant to effectively prosecute the case in the court of law.
DECISION
5. I have given a serious thought to the matter. There are two issues involved herein :-
(i) whether the appellant, being a third party, is entitled to obtain a copy of the DPC proceeding etc; &
(ii) whether the DPC proceedings can be denied on the ground that it will enable to seeker of information to effectively prosecute the case in the court of law.
6. As regards point (i) above, needless to say DPC proceedings are confidential in nature. Hence, third party can not have a claim to seek copy of these proceedings. However, it has been held by this Commission in a number of its decisions that the affected personnel have a right to obtain a copy of these proceedings. As noted above, the appellant is Advocate by profession and, therefore, is a third party and has no title to obtain a copy of the DPC proceedings. To this extent, the orders of the CPIO and AA are upheld.
7. Coming to issue No (ii), it appears to us that both CPIO and AA are in error in denying DPC proceedings only on the ground that disclosure thereof will enable the affected party to prosecute his case more effectively in the court of law. Infact, it should be other way around. Contesting a case in a court of law is, indeed, a good ground to seek a copy of the DPC proceedings, particularly when an affected person feels aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority, as reflected in the proceedings. However, we may add that this observation has no bearing in the matter in hand inasmuchas we have already held in the proceeding para that appellant is not an affected party in this matter and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek a copy of the DPC proceedings.
8. In sum, the appeal is dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove. However, if any of the employees of the Income Tax Department, who is adversely affected by the DPC proceedings, approaches the CPIO for providing a copy thereof, the CPIO would stand directed to provide the same on payment of prescribed fee, with utmost expedition..
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I (CCA) Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna (Bihar)-800001
2. Shri M.P. Dixit Kameshwari Apartment, Ramnagri, Sector-2, Patna-800025