Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) By an online RTI petition N. UPSCM/R/E/22/02833 sought 6 information for which CPIO replied for the query 4, 5, 6 as it is informed that no information, documents can be provided to the applicant till the finalisation of the case as furnishing the same would impede the progress of disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.

As the finalisation of the case is over the information is sought, the information pertaining to Query No. 4, 5 and 6 be provided under the act. Query and response is attached herewith for reference.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Point No. 4: It is informed that no comments /opinion /advice has been sought by UPSC from the Department of Legal Affairs in the disciplinary proceedings against Shri A. Sathasivam.

Point No. 5: The notings of the Commission in the disciplinary case file are basically part of decision making process. It may contain or include information /opinion /views /facts not only about the case of the charged officer but also about other officers, other cases, other departments/offices, opinion ete, given in fiduciary capacity or in confidence. Therefore, their divulsion is exempted under section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005.

Further, the notings on the disciplinary case files contain personal information not only of the charged officer but also others, and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Therefore, its divulsion is exempted under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.

In addition, the disclosure of "file notings" on the issue of imposition of penalty would identify the officials who have given their opinions and analysis in the case, the revealing of which might endanger their lives. The disclosure of such information is, therefore, exempted under Section 8(1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005.

In view of the above, the copies of note sheets cannot be provided. Further as per the policy decision of the commission copies of note sheets relating disciplinary matters are not provided to the applicant. The UPSC has also filed various LPAs in the High Court of Delhi claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (e), (g) & (j) of RTI, Act, 2005 from providing the copies of note sheet. Further the principle under which exemption was claimed would also be applicable in your case as yours is also an identical case on which the Hon'ble High Court is seized of the matter. Hence the matter is sub-judice.

Point No. 6: In so far as your request for copy of correspondence exchanged between UPSC and Department of Atomic Energy, it is stated that there are 44 pages in total and the same can be provided to you once you deposited a sum of Rs. 88/- @ Rs.2/- per page through IPO/DD/ Banker's Cheque in favour of Accounts Officer, UPSC, New Delhi or Cash at Facilitation Centre, UPSC, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi or through online payment gateway at http://rtionline.gov.in website as per i.e. RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ajay Gairola, Director, attended the hearing in person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought copies of noting and comments w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him. He further submitted that in a similar matter, the Commission had ordered relief to the appellant, against which the respondent had gone to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in UPSC vs D Thamizahamani, W.P (c) 10122/2021 & CMAPPL. 31230/2021 and stay has been granted. Subsequently, in another similar matter, the Commission vide file no. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/644963, no relief.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the instant matter would have been ordered in line with D Thamizhamani case which in itself was based on the rationale followed by a former bench in the S C Chauhan case, the factum of the averred stay order(s) brought to the notice of the bench does not leave any scope of adjudication in the matter at this stage. Since the instant case also seek for the noting(s)/correspondences of UPSC in the disciplinary proceedings carried out against the appellant, the square applicability of the fate of the averred writ petitions to the instant matter cannot be negated. For the said reason, no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: A. Sathasivam v. Union Public Service Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2023/620356; Date of Decision: 05.08.2024