CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003006/6387
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003006
Appellant : Mr. R. K. Nanda
WZ-50A, St. No. 10-Krishna Park
New Delhi-110018
Respondent : Ms. Renu Popli
Public Information Officer &
Senior Manager
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
B.B.M Complex, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 27/07/2009
PIO replied : 10/08/2009
First Appeal filed on : 31/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 01/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 30/11/2009
Information sought:
1. At the time of promotion of Sh. J. S. Malthortra, A.K. Goel & Sh. R. K. Kasana, Sr.
Mangaer to eh post of Dy. CGM, whether there were any investigation against them
was proceeded in the Vigilance Deptt.? If yes, it may be intimated that at what stage
the investigation was under process and related to that investigation, copy of noting
processed thereon be provided.
2. Whether any charge sheets were issued to the above officers after their promotion. If
yes, the copy of the chare sheet along with the report be provided.
3. When the officiating period of the above officers was crossed? Whether all he cases
pending against them were disposed off? What punishments have been imposed upon
them? Complete details be provided.
4. If the cases are pending still, the status of the each case be provided.
5. In DTC class-III & IV employees are generally reverted in case/ any case is registered
against them. Under what rules this being done? On the other side the employees
class-I & I on the other hand the officiating period of class I & II Officers are being
crossed during pendency of case why it is so?
PIO's Reply:
PIO informed that the information sought by the Appellant and as mentioned at Sl.No. 2 of his
application only pertain to Disc. Cell(HQ). The rest of the information did not pertain to his
office (DTC, I.P Estate) and might be sought from the concerned department(s).
In respect of point no. 5, PIO stated that one disciplinary case was initiated against Shri J. S.
Malhotra, Dy. CGM (Maint.) vide charge sheet No. VS-III(1)/1253 dated 07/06/2005. Photocopy
of the charge sheet was enclosed. As regards the copy of report demanded by the Appellant, it
was not clear as to whether he desires to have a copy of the investigation report or the enquiry
report. The position in this regard might be got clarified from the Appellant and intimated to this
office so that further action could be taken.
Other disciplinary cases initiated against S/Sh. J. S. Malhotra, Dy.CGM A.K. Goyal, Dy. CGM
& R.K Kasana, Dy. CGM, after their promotion, were pending and such information in respect
of theses cases was exempted.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information. Desired documents not provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that Appellant was satisfied with what information provided by the PIO except
point no. 5. About which the Appellant contended that the reply/information already provided to
him by the PLD Branch vide letter dated 09/09/2009 was not specific.
The FAA mentioned that said reply of point no. 5 was not specific. The concerned PIO,
Dy.CGM(PLD) was directed to furnish the specific reply to the Appellant of point no. 05 within
10 days.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant was not satisfied with order of the FAA. He requested to provide complete
information as sought.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. K. Nanda;
Respondent: Ms. Renu Popli, Public Information Officer & Senior Manager;
The PIO has refused to give the information on various disciplinary cases. The PIO’s
order states, “other disciplinary cases initiated against Mr. J.S.Malhotra, Dy. CGM, Mr.
A.K.Goel, Dy. CGM and Mr. R.K.Kasama, Dy. CGM after their promotion are still pending as
such information in respect of these cases is exempted under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.”
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts, “information which would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;”. The PIO was asked to justify
how disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation. The PIO states that
the investigation is over and further action is being contemplated. Exemptions under the RTI
Act have to be construed very strictly and PIOs cannot expand the scope of the exemptions or
read provisions which do not exist. The Right to Information is a fundamental right of the
citizen and the restrictions claimed under Section 8 (1) must be applied strictly as laid down by
the Parliament. Since the investigation is already over there is no ground to claim that the
process of investigation could be impeded. The PIO admits that there is no possibility of any
apprehension or prosecution of offenders in this matter.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on other disciplinary cases initiated
against Mr. J.S.Malhotra, Dy. CGM, Mr. A.K.Goel, Dy. CGM and Mr. R.K.Kasama, Dy. CGM
after their promotion to the Appellant before 30 January 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj