CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/001724
APPELLANT - Shri Syed Azimuddin
PUBLIC AUTHORITY - Indian Army
DATE OF HEARING - 07.06.2011
DATE OF DECISION - 07.06.2011
Facts
:-
Heard today dated 07.06.2011. Appellant not present. The Army is
represented by Capt. Abhilash Senger.
2. The matter, in short, is that the appellant is a serving officer of the Army.
A Court of Inquiry was held against him for acceptance of illegal gratification
etc. After the completion of CoI, copies of certain documents were provided to
him. However, vide his RTI application dated 29.01.2010, he had requested for
the following documents :-
“(a) copies of preliminary enquiry and related evidence held prior to the CoI;
(b) copies of findings, opinion and directions of CoI.”
3. Capt. Senger submits that GCM proceedings have been held against the
appellant and final decision is yet to be taken therein. According to him, the
matter is still under investigation in terms of section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and,
therefore, the requested information cannot be disclosed at this stage.
4. It may be noted that a similar issue had come up before this Commission
in File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001300 (Lt. Genl.(Retd.) Abhdesh Prakash -Vs-
Indian Army) and this Commission vide decision dated 25.04.2011 had held that
the CoI proceedings cannot be looked at on ‘stand alone’ basis and that the entire
disciplinary proceedings are a continnum and have to be viewed thus. Para 35 of
the order is extracted below :-
“35. In para 26 of the representation extracted above, Shri
Chandrashekhar has stated that based on summary of evidence, the
confirming authority has already ordered trial of the petitioner by GCM.
He has also stated that disclosure of the opinion and findings of CoI are
likely to impede the process of prosecution. He has given detailed
reasons in the above mentioned para which need not be repeated. On the
other hand, the appellant’s case is that CoI has been concluded and
statements of witnesses have already been supplied to him but the opinion
and findings of the CoI have not been provided. In other words, while the
appellant is looking at the CoI proceedings on ‘stand alone’ basis, Shri
Chandrashekhar, on the other hand, is looking at the entire disciplinary
proceedings as a continnum, beginning with CoI proceedings and
terminating with confirmation proceedings. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with Shri
Chandrashekhar that the matter may be deemed to be under prosecution
and disclosure of requested information at this stage would impede the
process of prosecution. Viewed thus, the matter, in hand, is covered
under clause(h) of section 8(1). Hence, we find no infirmity in the
decisions of CPIO & AA in denying requested information in File Nos.
001300 & 000655 in this regard.”
5. The ratio of the aforesaid decision squarely applies in the present
case. We, therefore, uphold the contention of Capt. Senger that the matter
is still under investigation and, therefore, the requested information
cannot be disclosed to the appellant at this stage. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central 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.
(K.L. Das)
Deputy Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. The Captain & CPIO,
HQ 38 Inf. Bde., PIN ; 903038
c/o 56 APO.
2. Shri Syed Azimuddin c/o
38 INF. Bde., c/o 56-APO.