CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000268/SG/12382
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000268/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Shri Tarsem Lal
42-C, DDA Flats, Gulabi Bagh,
Delhi --110007 .
Respondent: : Mr. A. K. Mishra,
CPIO & US,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi
RTI application: 05/07/2010
PIO reply: 02/08/2010
First appeal 09/08/2010
FAA order 27/08/2010
Second appeal 10/09/2010
Information sought:
“(i) Please provide a copy of the minutes of the Commission’s meeting held on 240
June, 2010.
(ii) Under what circumstances Shri Biresh Kumar, Additional Secretary
presented/presided over the meeting when he is complainant in some cases viz.
Shri Tarsem Lal, Deputy Secretary.
(iii) What safeguards were adopted to ensure Shri Biresh Kumar, IAS does not influence
the proceedings of the Commission.
(iv) Please provide copies of the notings of the Commission’s relevant file pertaining to
the processing of the disciplinary case of Shri Tarsem Lal, Deputy Secretary leading to
the issue of the Commission’s advice to DOP&T.
(v) Also allow to inspect the relevant file of the Commission and vigilance file No.
C13019/2/2006-Vigilance, F25/41/2005-(RC&P)/SPC-i and 1/346(80)/2004-R-
1/SPC-I,
(vi) A copy of the reference dated 9.11.2009 made by DOP&T seeking advice of the
Commission in the said disciplinary case.”
PIO’s reply:
(i) As regards point No. (i). it is stated that minutes of the Commission’s meeting, contain
decisions of the Commission regarding the advice of the Commission to be tendered to
the President of India. in your own disciplinary case. The said disciplinary case is
pending with DOP&T and is yet to be concluded, in view of this. The minute of the
meeting of the Commission are covered by the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(h)
of the RTI Act, 2005. In any case as per Rule 32 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, a copy of
the advice of the Commission alongwith a copy of the order passed in the case by the
Disciplinary Authority, will be communicated to you.
(ii) As regards point No. (ii). “In so far as the CPIO is aware meeting was held under the
Chairmanship of Chairman, UPSC; as per normal procedure.”
(iii) As regards point No. (iii). the query is hypothetical and realm of conjecture and;
CPIO is not expected to comment on the same.
(iv) As regards point No. (iv). your request for providing copies of notings of the
Commission’s file pertaining to the processing of your own disciplinary case leading to
the issue of the Commission’s advice to DOP&T has been examined in the light of
provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and decision of CIC in such similar cases. The files relate to
disciplinary case instituted not only against you but another official also. The said
disciplinary case is pending with DOP&T and is yet to he concluded. Hence the request is
covered by the exemption provided under Section 8(1 )( h) of the RTI Act. 2005.
(v) As regard point No. (v). regarding your request for the inspection of file in which
proceedings of the disciplinary ease was discussed by the Commission, Vigilance File
No.C130 9/2/2006- Vigilance. F.25/4 I /2005-(RC&P)/SPC-I and I /346(80)/2004-R-
l/SPC-l is concerned, these files relate to the records in the disciplinary case of Shri
Tarsem Lal which is still pending with DOP&T, being the Cadre Controlling Authority in
the case, and is yet to be concluded. Hence, the request for inspection of these files
cannot be acceded to in terms of exemption provided under Section 8(l)(h) of the RTI
Act, 2005.
(vi) As regards point no. (vi), your request has since been transferred to CPIO, DOP&T
vide letter of even number dated 9.7.2010, under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for First appeal:
Denial of information was not justified.
FAA order:
I have perused the records and carefully considered the matter in appeal, and the
comments of the CPIO therein. In this regard, it is to mention that the information as
available with the CPIO, has already been furnished to the Appellant and there is no
ground for further direction to the CPIO.
Grounds for Second appeal:
Information not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Tarsem Lal;
Respondents: Mr. A. K. Mishra, CPIO & US, Mr. K. M. Sasidharam, CPIO & US
(Admin), Mr. N. Mukherjee, CPIO & US (SPC) and Mr. R. C. Sharma, Section Officer
(SPC).
The PIO has refused to give information on query 1, 4 and 5 on the grounds that the
information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission
asked the Respondent to justify the denial of information on the basis of Section 8(1)(h)
of the RTI Act. The PIO states that disciplinary proceedings were being conducted
against the Appellant when the RTI application had been filed and hence, exemption was
claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. By the PIO’s admission, there was neither
any investigation nor any justification to claim an impediment on investigation, and the
PIO appears to have frivolously invoked the exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act
to deny the information.
Queries 2 and 3 do not really seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act. The Appellant states that he has received information on query 6.
The Respondent states that the person responsible for denying the information under
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was Mr. Y. P. Gupta, the then PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed. Mr. A. K. Mishra, CPIO & US is directed to provide the
information as available on record on queries 1, 4 and 5 to the Appellant before May 30,
2011.
The issue before the Commission is of refusing information on queries 1, 4 and 5
without any proper reasons.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing
information on queries 1, 4 and 5 without any proper reasons. It appears that the PIO’s
actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued
to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on June 1, 2011 at
11:30 am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the Appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay
in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons
of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
May 13, 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SG)
CC: Mr. Y. P. Gupta, the then PIO (through Mr. A. K. Mishra, CPIO & US).