Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000495
Dated April 12, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Mishra
Name of the Public Authority : M/o Railways, New Delhi
Background
1. The RTI Application was filed on 05.01.2010. The Applicant stated that with reference to FIR dated
30.11.2009 in CBI/JP’s case number RC JAI 2009 A 0025, a search was conducted at his residence
on 03.12.2009 by CBI Inspector Shri Jagdish Prasad and his team. In this connection he wanted to
know whether any approval was accorded by the Railway Board to conduct an enquiry into any
allegation relating to the Joint Secretary or above. The PIO replied on 22.01.2010 enclosing the
information received from the Directorate in which the Joint Director Vigilance stated that information
cannot be furnished as the case is still under investigation by CBI. The information is, therefore
exempt under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Applicant filed his First Appeal on
09.02.2010, stating that the information sought by him was pre requisite for initiating the process of
investigation; therefore the information is not exempt from disclosure. The Appellate Authority replied
on 02.03.2010 enclosing the reply of Section Officer Vigilance stating that Shri Sunil Mishra had
asked for information whether any approval was accorded by the Railway Board to CBI for
conducting investigation into the allegations against him and to provide him a copy of such approval
thereof. He also desired to know and have copy of the correspondences made with the CVC/CBI by
Railway Board prior to conducting the investigation into the allegations against him. The case is
currently under investigation with the CBI. Therefore the Govt. would have given permission for
investigation. However, the correspondences relating to grant of such permission is classified as
Secret. Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his Second Appeal seeking the information
once again.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on April 12,
2010.
3. Mr. Vikas, Director Vigilance and Shantanu Datta, SO represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that in response to the First Appeal, information against Point 1 was
provided. However, as for Point 2, the Respondent stated that the order giving sanction for investigation was
not disclosed as it is an advice given by the Vigilance Officer of the Ministry to the CBI and any disclosure of
information would result in disclosure of the identity of the Vigilance and CBI officers and may endanger the
physical safety of the officers . The Respondent produced the said letters before the Commission. On perusal
of the letters and after hearing the submission of the Respondent and noting that the investigation has yet to
be completed by the CBI the Commission denies disclosure of the information under section 8 (1) (g) of the
RTI Act as disclosure of identity of officers may endanger their physical safety and also under Section 8(1)(h)
as it is felt that there is every likelihood of the information being used to pressurize the Vigilance/CBI Officer
into changing his position/stand during the investigation,
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Sunil Misra,
915, Rani Sati Nagar,
Gautam Marg, Bansipath Crossing,
Jaipur 302019
2. The CPIO,
M/o Railways,
CPIOII, Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
M/o Railways,
CPIOII, Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road,
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC