Central Information Commission
CIC/OK/A/2008/01146/AD
Dated November 7, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Prem Matiyani,
C-II/63, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi-110011
Name of Public Authority : Under Secretary (Vig) & CPIO
Government of India
Ministry of Information and
Boradcasting,
A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi
Background
1. The RTI application was filed on 25.04.08. The Appellant requested
for inspection of files relating to the extension of his period of
suspension and supply of certified copies of relevant information from
the files. The CPIO replied on 16.05.08 stating that the request for
inspection of files cannot be acceded to under Section 8(1)(h) of the
RTI Act since it contains references to the P.E. report conducted by Mr.
Pyare Lal, Sr. Secretary. He stated further that the P.E. report is
under examination in the Ministry and that if he so desires, the
Appellant can have copies of the minutes of the 4th suspension review
meeting and the decisions of the disciplinary authority. The CPIO
followed this up by sending the minutes and the decision of the
Disciplinary Authority to the Appellant vide his letter dated 26.05.08.
The Appellant then filed his first appeal before the concerned Appellate
Authority in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 30.05.08
stating that the copies of the documents sent to him by the CPIO
already contain references to the PE report, the very report because of
which inspection of files was denied to him. The Appellant reiterated
his request for inspection of related files and supply of copies of
relevant documents. The Appellate Authority (Director (Vig.) replied
on 26.06.08 stating that he had studied the whole matter and
observed that the Appellant may inspect the file except the P.E.
Report/Background note for the review committee. He denied access
to the report under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with
the reply, the Appellant preferred his second appeal before the CIC on
10.08.08 reiterating his request for supply of information sought in the
RTI application.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,
scheduled the hearing for November 7, 2008.
3. Shri A.D. Roy CPIO & Under Secretary, Shri. Vijay Sharma Director I.P.
(vig.), Shri. Thomas Mathani and Shri. A.K. Bhola S.O. (vig) M/o I&B
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant, Mr. Prem Matiyani was present in person.
Decision
5. The Appellant submitted that he has been under suspension for over
two years and he pleaded that he be given a chance to prepare for his
defence in the Court where a Case against him is pending.
6. The Respondents submitted that the P.E. report was denied to the
Appellant since there is a likelihood of disciplinary action being taken
against the Appellant based on the report. They, however, admitted
that although the inquiry conducted by Mr. Pyare Lal, Jt. Secretary in
the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, was completed several
months ago, no charge-sheet has been filed in the court against the
Appellant.
7. The Appellant argued that because of the fact that no charge-sheet
has been filed in the Court against him in this matter within the time
limit of three months (prescribed by Cabinet Sectt. (Dept. of
Personnel) Memo No. 39/39/40-Ests(A) dated 4th February 1971 on
the subject of quick disposal of cases of departmental proceedings) he
is entitled to inspect the file along with the inquiry report. He also
stated that more that 7 months have passed since the report has been
filed and that no action has been taken by the Public Authority on the
document.
8. The Commission heard both the sides and also studied the said report.
The Commission also noted the contents of the Cabinet Sectt. (Dept.
of Personnel) Memo No. 39/39/70-Ests (A) dated 4th February 1971
and the Deptt. of Personnel & A.R. O.M. no 35014/1/81-Ests (A) dated
9th November 1982, both of which insist on quick disposal of cases
and filing of charge-sheet within 3 months of the date of suspension of
a Government official.
9. Based on the above observations, the Commission holds that since the
Appellant has been under suspension for more than 7 months and
since this particular report has been completed and no action taken
against the Appellant during all these months including filing of charge
sheet, the Appellant is entitled to inspect the concerned file as
requested by him, along with the part of the P.E. report of Mr. Pyare
Lal, not exempted by disclosure under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.
10. The Commission directs the CPIO to allow the Appellant to inspect the
files along with the P.E. report after severing from the P.E. report all
references to cases against other Officers and to provide certified
copies of required documents to the Appellant.
11. All information to be provided to the Appellant within 15 days of
receipt of this Order.
12. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
1. Mr. Prem Matiyani, C-II/63, Shajahan Road, New Delhi.
2. Mr. A.D. Roy, Under Secretary (Vig) & CPIO, Government of India,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, A Wing Shastri Bhavan, New
Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority – RTI Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting, A Wing Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC