CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000838
Dated, the 26th March, 2010.
Appellant : Shri D.P. Shinde
Respondents : Mumbai Port Trust
This matter came up for hearing on 25.02.2010 through
videoconferencing (VC). Appellant was present in person at NIC VC
facility at Mumbai. Respondents ― represented by the CPIO ― were
present at the same venue. Commission conducted the hearing from its
New Delhi office.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- Appellant, through his
RTI-application dated 17.08.2009, requested disclosure of three items
of information. Presently, it is only item no.III, which is in second-
appeal. This reads as follows:-
“Charge Memo to Shri C.S. Murty, Traffic Manager (Retd) with all
enclosures under No.SECY/P/GEE-TM/11567/24-12-2003 and reply
to the same by Shri C.S. Murty.”
3. CPIO, through his communication dated 07.09.2009, declined to
disclose the information citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO noting in the
process that the appellant had not attempted even to dispute the points
made by the CPIO while conveying his inability to furnish the
information requested.
5. During the hearing, it was pointed out by the CPIO that appellant
was facing a departmental enquiry and had requested for the very same
information from the Enquiry Officer, which was turned down. CPIO
argued that once an Enquiry Officer under the statute governing
disciplinary enquiries, denies certain information to a person, it was not
open to that person to seek the same information through the RTI Act.
6. Appellant has argued that this information, vital to prove his
innocence in the disciplinary enquiry, was purposefully withheld from
AT-26032010-08.doc
Page 1 of 2
him in order to inflict on him a wrongful punishment. He has further
pointed out that one third-party, Mr.C.S.Murty was subjected to a
disciplinary proceeding on the orders of the Chairman of the public
authority on the basis of, what appellant describes as, “my submission
to then Chairman on 08.04.2002”. However, the proceedings against
Mr. Murty were closed on the basis of “his reply to the charge-memo”.
Appellant believes that total transparency was not maintained in
dealing with the case of Mr.Murty by the Mumbai Port Trust
Administration. The documents he now wants would have proved the
alleged double-standards adopted by the Port Administration in the
matters concerning the third-party, Mr.Murty and the appellant in the
disciplinary proceedings against them.
7. During the hearing, appellant could not clearly bring out whether
the disciplinary proceedings he was referring to and which involved both
him and the third-party, Mr.Murthy related to the same event or they
were separate and distinct. In case the disciplinary proceedings against
the said Mr.Murty and the appellant were on account of a common set
of alleged offences, then the Commission’s decision, in case
No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000821 dated 16.03.2010 in Amarjeet Singh Vs.
Director General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, would apply.
In case the two proceedings were independent of each other, in that
case, a view will need to be taken to consult the said, Mr.Murty as
third-party and to decide the matter about disclosing information in the
light of those consultations under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
8. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority,
Shri P. Mohana Chandran to examine the matter de-novo and to make a
decision in the light of the facts available on record and as instructed at
paragraph 7 above. He has four weeks’ time to complete these
deliberations and to pass an order.
9. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-26032010-08.doc
Page 2 of 2