CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00228/SG/0753
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00228/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. V.P.Yadav,
252, Hastsal Village,
New Delhi-110059.
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I.P.Estate,New Delhi-110002.
RTI Application filed on : 17/08/2007
PIO replied : 12/09/2007
First appeal filed on : 19/09/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 16/10/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 15/01/2008
Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an application asking for the attested photocopy of Note Sheet Page No.
28/N, 29/N, 30/N, 61/N, 81/N from file No. F7/36/96/DOV/2326 dated 08-04-05.
The PIO Reply:
In this regard, it is to inform that the requisite record is being requisitioned by the Court of Sh.
R.B.Singh, Addl. District Judge in the Civil Suit file by Sh. V.P.Yadav against Sh. Ramesh Tiwari,
JAG officer of DANICS from time to time. Therefore, the requisite information could be obtained
through the Court concerned and the matter is
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The appellant had said that the PIO had not been provide the proper information. Hence, the
Appellant filed a separate appeal saying that he had also suffered mental agony and harassment on
account of unduly long suspension period and disciplinary cases initiated against him on false grounds
and therefore, information sought by him should not be denied as it relates to his own case.
Supply of notings portion of the Vigilance file containing view/expression/opinions of various
officers/officials may not be desirable as Vigilance files are confidential and so also the identity of
officer/officials processing them.
It is also fact that the Appellant is still in service. Disclosure of the identity of the officials who made
noting in the Vigilance file and not concerned with the pending of the potential of harming
interpersonal relationship, particularly, when officials proceeded against for disciplinary action,
suspension etc.
“Having considered all the appeals carefully prudently and objectively the I feel that the reply
given by the PIO in respect of Appellant’s application dated 16-08-07 (one), 06-06-07 and 24-08-
07 does not suffer any infirmity. And therefore neither amounts to violation of provision of RTI
Act nor denial if information in terms of the provision of the Act. In respect of Appellant
another application of 16-08-07, I feel that copy of the DO letter not marked confidential and a
matter of correspondent between two officers cab be supplied to the Appellant.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. V.P.Yadav,
Respondent: Mr. D. Verma PIO
The respondent was told that the denial of information has not been justified by any of the
clauses of Section 8 (1). The PIO accepts this but now seeks the shelter of Section 8 (1) (g).
Section 8 (1) (g) states, ” 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;” .
The respondent was asked whether there was any remote possibility of endangering the life
or physical safety of anyone by giving information to the appellant, who appears to be very
civil and law abiding Citizen. The respondent is not offering any reasoning to justify this
claimed exemption.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information to the appellant before 30 December, 2008.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26th December, 08.
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)