PIO: Letter contains the brief of the proposed disciplinary action, details of which were already revealed in the Chargesheet served to the appellant - CIC: PIO was unable to tender any justification for invoking section 8(1)(h); Provide the information

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2022 seeking for the ‘attested photostat copy of P.M.G. Varanasi Region, Varanasi-2, Letter no. RPV/Vig./3-4/2020 dated 25.01.2021.’

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.11.2022 denied the information 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; 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 RTI Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 20.12.2022 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 04.01.2023.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Asst. Director & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant submitted that he is aggrieved with the wrongful denial of the information by the CPIO.

7. The Respondent submitted that the letter sought for by the Appellant was the communication under which departmental action was sought against the Appellant and it contains the brief of the proposed disciplinary action, details of which were already revealed in the Chargesheet served to him. Upon a query from the Commission regarding the invocation of 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; 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 CPIO was unable to tender any justification except for reiterating that the details contained in the averred letter were already revealed in the Chargesheet.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has grossly failed to justify the denial of the information 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; 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 i.e. the failure to explain what impediment will be caused to an investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offender by the disclosure of the averred information. Despite being afforded with adequate opportunity during the hearing to the CPIO to justify the denial as required under Section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. of the RTI Act, no tenable explanation was forthcoming. Further, it is not disputed that the information sought for by the Appellant relates to his own disciplinary case. In view of the said observations, the Commission rejects the square denial of the information and directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide a reply to the Appellant incorporating the available information as sought for therein, free of cost.

In doing so, the CPIO is afforded the limited liberty to redact in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, the names and identifying particulars of third parties as well as the personal information, if any, related to third parties, both of which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shankar Ram Verma v. Department Of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2023/100589; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024