cic recommending stricture on appellate authority
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/4/2019 CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority
1/4
1
Central Information CommissionRoom No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi 110066
Telefax:011 26180532 & 011 26107254 website cic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220
Appellant : Sh. V.K. Sharma,
Chandigarh
Public Authority : Home Deptt. (III),
Chandigarh.
(Sh. Amrit Pal Sharma, CPIO
and Sh.
Sh.Amitabawa)
Date of Hearing : 12 May 2011
Date of Decision : 12 May 2011
Facts:
1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma submitted RTI application
dated 9.7.2010 before the CPIO, Supdt. Home III,
Chandigarh Administration seeking time etc.
pertaining to chargesheets issued to him on5.10.2004, 9.3.2005 and 31.6.2007 alongwith decision
taken on his application dated 5.5.2010 enclosed
wherewith as Annexure A.
2. Vide order dated 10.8.2010, the CPIO denied
disclosure of information as requested under Points
No. 1, 2 and 4 of the RTI application by citing the
provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI
Act, 2005. The appellant preferred appeal dated
6.9.2010 before the First Appellate Authority which
was decided vide FAA order dated 5.10.2010 in which
it was recorded that in the matter pertaining to
disciplinary inquiry against the appellant the
penalty of stoppage of two increments had been
imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, on
account of the fact that the appellant had filed
appeal against the orders of the disciplinary
authority, it was held that the proceedings in the
case were still not complete and denial of
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220
-
8/4/2019 CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority
2/4
2
information was upheld under the provisions of
Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the
above orders, the appellant challenged them before
the Commission by preferring second appeal. Thematter was heard today. Both parties were present as
above and presented arguments. The appellant stated
with great thrust that penalty had already been
awarded and the disciplinary proceedings were
complete and over. However, he had sought
information from the respondent so as to prepare a
well argued appeal against the penalty imposed upon
him which opportunity he had been denied on account
of refusal of the information sought by him. He
further stated that information provided under Point
No. 3 was incomplete and vague. The respondent
confirmed that chargesheet dated 5.10.2004 was
disposed of and final orders was passed on 4.5.2010
and chargesheet dated 9.3.2005 was also put to final
closure through order dated 15.7.2010. The appellant
stated that denial of information to him by the
respondent was willful and showed mala fide
intention. The respondent confirmed that the
disciplinary proceedings were now over and they were willing to provide full and complete information as
sought by the appellant in his RTI application.
Decision Notice
4. After hearing both parties and on persuing the
facts on record, the Commission notes that even
though final orders had been passed and penalty
awarded to the appellant well before the orders ofthe CPIO dated 10.8.2010 and the First Appellate
Authority, dated 5.10.2010, they continued to deny
disclosure of information to the appellant by citing
Section 8(1)(h) of the Act which allows exemption
from disclosure of information which would impede
the process of investigation or apprehension or
prosecution of offenders
5. Therefore, this denial of disclosure is
unjustified and does not stand scrutiny of law.
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220
-
8/4/2019 CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority
3/4
3
Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide
full and complete point wise information to the
appellant within one week of receipt of the order.
The Commission observes that in response to Point No.
3 of the RTI application, CPIO has stated that theapplication of the appellant dated 5.5.2010 has been
examined and the same has been filed by the competent
authority. The Commission is in agreement with the
appellant that this amounts to denial of information
and respondent is directed to provide full notings
pertaining to the disposal of this letter up to the
point of final decision. The information, as above,
be furnished within one week of the receipt of the
orders.
6. Through this order, the Commission issues Notice
to the then CPIO to show cause why penalty should not
be imposed upon him for having wrongly denied the
information to the appellant. Opportunity of personal
hearing is provided to him and he is directed to appear
before Commission on 24.6.2011 at 12.30 PM at UT Guest
House, Sector 6, Chandigarh.
7. The Commission observes that the then first
Appellate Authority Smt. Prerna Puri adjudicated upon
the matter without application of mind and clearly
showing bias against disclosure of information even
though the enquiry was complete and over and final
orders had already been passed by the competent
authority thereby denying the appellant a fair
opportunity of making a well argued appeal against
the punishment awarded to him to the next higher
authority. Under the powers of the Commission under
Section 20(2), the Commission recommends controlling
authority to issue memo of stricture to her forlapse in discharging his duties as mandated under the
RTI Act.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220
-
8/4/2019 CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority
4/4
4
Copy to:
1. Shri Vinod KumarSharma
House No.2254, Sector 19 C,
Chandigarh
2. The CPIO
The Supdt. Home 111,
Chandigarh Administration Sectt.
Sector 19 C, UT Chandigarh
3. The Appellate Authority
The Supdt. Home 111,
Chandigarh Administration Sectt.
Sector 19 C, UT Chandigarh
4. Shri Bhupiner Singh
Joint Transport Commissioner
Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh
5. The Commissioner Transport
Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh
(The officers mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4 & 5
orders to be served through UT Secretariat,
Chandigarh)
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220