Copy of communication received from vigilance section regarding proposed penalty against a reservation clerk, nomination of enquiry officer & related issues was denied u/s 8(1)(h) claiming that he may try to influence witnesses - CIC: provide information
14 Apr, 2014O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 18-7-2012 seeking copy of communication received from vigilance section WCR HQ regarding proposed penalty and nomination of enquiry officer and related issues.
2. The CPIO responded on 25-7-2012. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 9-8-2012. The FAA responded on 28-8-2012, denying the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The appellant approached the Commission on 28-9-2012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. I heard the appellant through videoconferencing. The respondent was present during the hearing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 18-7-2012 and stated that he was seeking information on the various counts as reflected in his RTI application which essentially pertained to the correspondence between vigilance department of Jabalpur who wrote to the DRM, Kota on the subject of charge sheet and major penalty proceedings pending against a railway employee, named in the RTI application, who was a reservation clerk. The appellant stated that he already has an NOC from the person about whom this correspondence has been done and that he is also representing the railway employee in the proceedings.
5. The respondent stated that the matter pertains to a major departmental proceeding in which the punishment is expected to be a major penalty as is reflected in the charge sheet. The respondent stated that the CPIO had responded to the RTI application on 25-7-2012 in which the respondent had told the appellant that the matter is pending in enquiry.
6. The respondent further stated that at the level of the FAA, the order which was issued on 28-8-2012 stated that the information has been denied under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act to the appellant. The respondent stated that the proceedings are such which can lead to major penalty including the removal or dismissal from the service and the matter is such in which the person who has been charge sheeted may try to influence the witnesses to utilize the departmental proceedings taking into account that the charge sheet because in the vigilance check a sum of Rs. 15,572/ was found in excess on the booking counter in the railway cash in his possession.
7. The appellant stated that the respondent is needlessly taking the cover of some technicalities. The appellant said that the names of witnesses are already known to the appellant. The appellant stated that the respondent themselves have communicated the names of the witnesses as a part of the enquiry process. The appellant cited a decision no. CIC/OP/A/2009/000093AD, dated 4-1-2010 of the Commission in which the information has already been provided on the same subject. The appellant stated that he needed the information sought to defend himself.
8. There is no apparent reason to deny the information sought.
Decision:
9. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Satish Kr. Kulshrestha v. Western Central Railway in Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003268/VS/06223