Central Information Commission
CIC/OP/C/2009/000130
Dated December 15, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Kuldeep Singh
Name of the Public Authority : NR HQ, New Delhi
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.17.1.09 with the CPIO, NR HQ, New Delhi. He
stated that in reference to Major Charge Sheet No.E/141/1975/Vig/E(D&A) dt.22.9.08
issued to him in connection with a vigilance case, he had requested the concerned
authority repeatedly to make available the relied upon documents and some other
relevant documents to enable him to submit his defense reply but so far neither has
been supplied the documents nor any reply has been given to his letters. In this
context, he requested for information against 8 points. Shri Sanjay Kumar,
PIO/Vigilance & Dy.CVO/Stores replied on 3.2.09 denying the information u/s 8(1)(g)
and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal
dt.6.3.09 with the CPIO, NR HQ, New Delhi stating that he is not able to understand as
to how the disclosure of sought information would endanger the life or physical safety
of the officials dealing with the case. He also added that when the vigilance branch
has completed its investigations and finally the charge sheet has been issued on the
basis of investigation report, how the disclosure of information would impede the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of the offender. With regard
to point (i), he stated that CVC report should have been supplied along with the
charge sheet as per CVC letter dt.28.9.08. With regard to point (ii), he stated that
when the CVC report/Advise can be disclosed to charged officials then why the Vig.
Report on which CVC advise as well as charge sheet is based cannot be disclosed to
him. Against point (iv) he stated that information related to clarification sought by
Vigilance Department in the case from S&T regarding cable laying practice in RCC pipe
between home to home signal. Similarly, he rebutted the decision of the PIO in
respect of points 5, 6, 7 and 8. Shri Ravindra Kumar, CPIO replied on 1.4.09
enclosing the order dt.26.3.09 passed by the Appellate Authority and Sr.DGM who
upheld the decision of the PIO against points 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8. With regard to point
1, the Sr.DGM stated that the Applicant should approach the Disciplinary Authority for
seeking such information and providing such information by any other authority will
tantamount to interference in inquiry which is yet to be completed. Not satisfied with
the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.9.6.09 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for December 15, 2009.
3. Shri Pranay Kumar, Dy. CVO/Elect and Shri J.C.Gupta, Dy. CSTE/HQ represented the
Public Authority.
4. The applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that at the time of receipt of RTI application, the
disciplinary inquiry was going and now the CVC report and first stage advise advise as
sought in point 1 can be provided. He added that information against point 3 has
been provided and information against points 7 and 8 can also be provided since the
related investigation is over. With regard to the remaining points, he brought to the
attention of the Commission, a letter dt.5.12.05 signed by Shri R.S.Sharma, Director
Vigilance(M), Railway Board in which it was stated that information pertaining to cases
under investigation need not be given as per the provisions contained in para 8(h) of
RTI as it may impede the process of investigation. Information can only be furnished
after finalization of the investigation and completion of DAR proceedings.
5. The Commission after hearing the submissions made by the Respondents directs the
CPIO to provide information against points 1 , 7 and 8 to the Complainant by 31.12.09
and directs the Complainant to submit a compliance report by 7.1.2010. All
information to be provided by 10 January, 2010. Information against points 2, 4, 5
and 6 is denied under Section 8(1)(h) as the Disciplinary proceedings are ongoing and
any disclosure of information at this stage may be used to influence the proceedings.
All information to be provided once the disciplinary proceedings are finalized.
6. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Kuldeep Singh
DC-102
Railway Officers Colony
Near DRM Office
Moradabad 244 001
2. Shri Sanjay Kumar
PIO (Vigilance) &
Dy.CVO (Stores)
Northern Railway
Head Quarters
Baroda House
New Delhi
3. Ms.Aashima Mehrotra
The CPIO & DGM(Law)
Northern Railway
Head Quarters
Baroda House
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC