Central Information Commission
Amitabh Thakur vs Cabinet Secretariat on 6 November, 2020
के ीयसू चनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागं गनाथमाग, मु िनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CABST/A/2019/160068
Shri Amitabh Thakur ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance & Complaint ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Cell,Vigyan Bhawan, Annexe, New Delhi-110001
Through: Sh. D K Jain - CPIO/US
Date of Hearing : 04.11.2020
Date of Decision : 06.11.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.08.2019
PIO replied on : 29.08.2019
First Appeal filed on : 17.10.2019
First Appellate Order on : 21.10.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.12.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 20.08.2019 seeking information on the following 07 points related to a letter dated 14/05/2015 addressed to Sri Z Samte, Section Officer, Cabinet Secretariat, pertaining to a complaint against Sri Anil Goswami, Ex Home Secretary, in response to his letter No 501/I/18/2015- VCC dated 11/05/2015:
1. When did this letter reach Cabinet Secretariat.
2. What action was taken by Cabinet Secretariat on this letter.
3. What directions or orders were issued by Cabinet Secretariat on this letter.
4. Who was made the Enquiry officer in the given case.
5. What was the result of the enquiry in the given case. Kindly provide a copy of the enquiry report.
6. What action was taken on this enquiry report.
7. Kindly provide a copy of the concerned file in Cabinet Secretariat (including Notesheet and correspondence with various offices) in which this letter was processed.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) Page 1 of 3 The CPIO & U.S., Cabinet Secretariat, Delhi furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.08.2019 acknowledging receipt of letter dated 14.05.2015, in response to query no. 1. In response to remaining queries, appellant was informed:
"...GoS meeting was held on 6.1.2017 Group noted the status furnished by DoPT and CVC and hence, decided not to pursue the matter further at its level. In terms of judgment dated 01.11 2017 of High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 7218/2016 in the matter of Kamal Bhasin versus Radha Krishna Mathur & Anr. the petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2019.The FAA vide order dated 21.10.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO/US, CAB vide letter dated 20.10.2020 reiterating that the Appellant had been informed that his complaint had been duly considered by the Group of Secretaries and disposed off. The answering Respondent had placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Bhasin versus Radha Krishna Mathur & Anr.
justifying denial of further information.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant commenced his argument drawing a distinction of this case from the Delhi High Court judgment and challenging the applicability of the said judgment in his case, claiming that facts of both the cases are dissimilar, in as much as the petitioner (Kamal Bhasin) had not sought file notings etc. and because the complaints referred in the High Court decision related to allegations of misconduct. It is the contention of the Appellant that as opposed to the High Court case referred to by the Respondent, in this case, he has sought information including file notings, in public interest, to know the sequence of events which led to the forced resignation of Sri Anil Goswami, Ex Home Secretary. He reasoned that since the High Court decision dealt with a different set of facts, the decision in the case of Kamal Bhasin is not applicable in his case.
Respondent claims that the information as available in their official records, has already been provided which answers the queries raised by the Appellant. Respondent referred to their earlier argument citing the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Kamal Bhasin denying further information.
Page 2 of 3Decision Upon hearing averments of the parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that it is an undisputed fact that outcome of the complaint has been disclosed to the Appellant. The subject matter which forms the basis of the instant case is disclosure of note sheets and other correspondence exchanged by various offices, in the process of considering the complaint filed against Sri Goswami.
Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is pertinent to discuss the averments of the Appellant with respect to the distinction drawn with the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Kamal Bhasin. First and foremost, it is noteworthy that the High Court had focused the decision on the information regarding action taken pursuant to a complaint, since the petitioner had restricted his request to the same. However, the initial query included request for the file notings with respect to the complaints filed against the then CMD of Power Finance Corporation. Even then, the judgment clearly laid down: "..this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question..."
It is noteworthy that the Apex Court has held on numerous occasions, like in the most recent decision dated 13.11.2019, in the case of CPIO, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044 OF 2010] clearly held:
"..professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information... Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied."
The contentions put forth by the Appellant do not establish the larger public interest which will be served by disclosure of the noting sheet or the file as sought by the Appellant vide the query number 7.
Under the circumstances, the response as provided by the Respondent is found to be justified and does not suffer from any infirmity. As such there is no requirement to interfere with the same.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. िस ा) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पं जीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3