Central Information Commission
Sugan Chandra Gupta vs Ministry Of Steel on 19 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSTL/A/2024/652333.
Shri. SUGAN CHANDRA GUPTA ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Steel.
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2025
Date of Decision : 17.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2024
PIO replied on : 30.09.2024
First Appeal filed on : 30.09.2024
First Appellate Order on : 17.10.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.11.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide a copy of the investigation report to complaint dt 27/09/2021, enclosed blocking personal names etc) filed by the information seeker, to cvo ministry of steel"
The CPIO, Under Secretary, Vigilance Division vide letter dated 30.09.2024 replied as under:-
"4 However, with respect to instant application, the position was checked from the records and it is stated that with regard to promotions of executives for the year 2019, a CBI case was registered and after receiving their findings, the Ministry has initiated appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the RINL officers involved in the case. The inquiry proceedings in the said case are undergoing and same is not disclosable under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. 2005. Further, report/findings from CBI in this matter cannot be shared as CBI is an exempted organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, as also observed by the Hon'ble Commission in the Order No. CIC/MOSTL/A/2022/159570 dated 02.08.2023 (copy enclosed). For the allegations related to remaining DPCs as brought out in complaint dated 27.09.2021, it is stated that as per records, investigation of the matter is still pending in the Ministry, as the related matters in the complaint and those assailed upon by you in a Page 1 W.P. No. 17689 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh are broadly common and presently subjudice (copy of Order of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 06.08.2024 is enclosed). Therefore, the investigation report on these allegations/issues cannot be disclosed at this stage under Section 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2024. The FAA, Director, Vigilance Division vide order dated 17.10.2024 stated as under :-
"3. WHEREAS, CPIO, Ministry of Steel, vide letter dated 30.09.2024, informed that the inquiry proceedings in the said case are not disclosable under Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Further, report/findings from CBI in this matter are exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. 2005. as also observed by the Hon'ble Commission in the Order No. CIC/MOSTL/A/2022/159570 dated
02.08.2023:
4. WHEREAS, in the appeal, the appellant has agitated that CPIO's decision stating that the information may be provided to him by masking name of the officials mentioned in the report:
5. AND WHEREAS, upon consideration of the appeal, it is observed that CPIO has not sought any exemption eiting the matter as sub-
judice, but he has citied detailed reasons for seeking the exemption under specific provisions of RTI Act, 2005. It is also observed that CPIO has sought exemption from disclosure based on factual information held by him and it is not advisable to severe part of the report available in the file and provide same at this stage:
6. NOW THEREFORE, the reply furnished by the CPIO found to be is in order"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 10.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"The appellant Shri Sugan Chandra Gupta in his 2nd appeal dated 24.11.2024 (Annexure-VII) before the Hon'ble Commission has stated that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has decided on 30.01.2024 (CPIO vs. Sanjeev Chaturvedi) that the CBI is bound to disclose investigation report into allegations of corruption under RTI Act. And this decision is after the CIC decision on 02.08.2023. The appellant has further stated that continuation of enquiry proceedings is no bar to disclose the investigation report under RTI Act. Regarding threat to personal safety, he has stated that he, himself, has sought the report after masking the names or other personal details. For the allegations of remaining DPCs, WP No.17689/2019 has nothing in common with the information sought. The appellant has, therefore, prayed before the Hon'ble CIC to direct the CPIO to furnish the complete investigation reports in respect of the complaint dated 27.09.021 for DPCs 2012 to 2019,
4. In this connection, it is submitted that in compliance with Hon'ble CIC's earlier Order dated 02.08.2023 in the same matter Page 2 of irregularities in DPCs in RINL, Ministry furnished a reply dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-VIII). The appellant was informed that after receiving CBI findings, the Ministry initiated appropriate disciplinary proceedings against RINL officers involved in the case and the same were at the inquiry stage. It was also informed that as observed by Hon'ble CIC in the Order dated 02.08.2023, the report/findings from CBI in this matter could not be shared as CBI is an exempted organization under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. For the allegations related to remaining DPCs, it was informed that the matter was subjudice in W.P. No.17689/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the investigation report on these allegations/issues, were denied disclosure under Sections 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. It is relevant to submit that CVO, RINL vide letter dated 07.01.2025 has informed this Ministry that the matter in W.P. No.17689/2019 has since been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Order dated 30.12.2024. However, the complaint dated 27.09.2021 has not been concluded yet and the same needs examination in this Ministry in the light of the said Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. As regards the plea of the appellant that the W.P. No.17689/2019 has nothing in common with the information sought, it is submitted that as per Hon'ble Commission's Order No.CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/137220 dated 11.02.2020 (Annexure- IX), the PIO is not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Therefore, the copies of investigation report in the complaint dated 27.09.2024, still attracts Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 in view of Hon'ble CIC decision dated 26.06.2013 in the case of Manoj Arya Vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat may kindly be referred, wherein it has been ruled that "the information sought by the appellant in this case is about some complaints made against a government official and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaint. It is thus, clearly the kind of information which is envisaged in the above Supreme Court order. Therefore, the information is completely exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI act which both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have rightly cited in their respective orders".
The furnishing of investigation report to the appellant also seems not authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. (Annexure-X, CIC's Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017).."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Page 3 Respondent: Mr. Bijaya Kumar Sahoo- US/CPIO- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He further stated that he had sought investigation report in reference to the compliant which he had made. He stated that he is the complainant in the matter and the investigation report should be furnished to him.
The Respondent stated that the investigation report in the matter has not been furnished to the Appellant since the same relates to third party and same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) f the RTI Act. Furthermore, the complaint dated 27.09.2021 has not been concluded yet and the same needs examination in this Ministry in the light of the order dated 30.12.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide outcome of the investigation report as available in their records, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In doing so PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)