Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000202SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 3 August 2011
Date of decision : 3 August 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri B R Beedu
8, Ramalinga Nagar,
Bharathi Park, 5th Cross Road,
Coimbatore - 641 011.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission,
Satarkta Bhawan, G P O Complex,
Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110 023.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri R.C. Dhankar, Director,
(ii) Shri P. Sarkar, SO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Coimbatore studio of the NIC while the Respondents were
present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought the copies of documents along with
enclosures through which the CBEC had explained the position that laid the
CVC to issue the advice in their office memorandum number 067/CEX/061
59638 dated 15 June 2007 as also the copies of the file notings relating to the
disposal of the reference from the CBEC. The CPIO declined the information by
CIC/WB/A/2010/000202SM
claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act
after consulting the CBEC as a third party. The Appellate Authority had
endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
4. The Respondents submitted that although the proceedings against the
Appellant himself had since been completed, the proceedings against the
remaining employees who had been chargesheeted in connection with this
case were still pending and, therefore, the disclosure of the entire details as
sought by the Appellant could adversely affect the pending enquiry and
apprehension of the offenders. The Appellant, on the other hand, submitted that
the proceedings pending against him were now complete and that after the
second stage advice of the CVC, he had already been penalised. He wanted
the information relating to him to be disclosed. The Respondents argued that
since this case involved a large number of employees and the records and
documents received from the CBEC had common references to all those
employees, distinguishing the information relating to the Appellant from the rest
of the cases might not be possible.
5. We carefully considered the facts of the case as well as the submissions
made during the hearing. Since the disciplinary proceedings against the
Appellant have concluded with the advice of the CVC, we do not see any
reason why the desired documents should not be disclosed now. Even if the
communications from the CBEC would contain some references to other
employees, it would hardly matter now that the CVC has already given its
advice in relation to the Appellant. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to
the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the copies of
the desired documents.
CIC/WB/A/2010/000202SM
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2010/000202SM