CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000512, 519/3164
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000512, 519
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S.K. Tiwari,
CPDE/W.C. Railway
Office of GM/West Central Railway,
Opp. Indira Market,
Jabalpur (MP)-482001.
Respondent : Mr.S.P. Singh
PIO
West Central Railway, Jabalpur
Central Manager Office RTI Cell,
Jabalpur.
RTI application filed on : 12/09/2008
PIO replied : 30/09/2008
First appeal filed on : 07/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : Not replied
Second Appeal filed on : 05/03/2009
The appellant had asked information regarding two tenders for the work of fabrication
and supply of steel channel sleepers which were invited by Jablapur Division vide
tender notice No. 73/04 dt. 12.04.2004 and tender notice no.95/04 dt.10.5.2004. In
connection with these tenders, following informations are requested under RTI Act,
2005:-
(1) Chief Technical Examiner of CVC had inspected West Central Railway and
prepared his Inspection Report on the above 2 tender cases. A copy of the
Inspection Report of CTE/CVC may kindly be furnished.
(2) Action taken by Vigilance Organization of WCR, on receipt of Inspection Report
of CTE/CVC along with all file notings and a copy of the report prepared and sent
to Railway Board on the issue of finalization of tenders.
(3) While conduction enquiry, Vigilance Organization of W.C. Railway have issued
few questionnaires to concerned officers involved in finalization of tenders.
Officers had given reply to questionnaires of Vigilance Organization. Kindly
furnish copies of the comments offered by Vigilance Organization of West
Central Railway on the replies furnished by officers.
(4) Comments of vigilance organization, investigating officer, GM/WCR and
disciplinary authority on following 8 letters of the undersigned written on the
subject.
(i) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 2.01.2007 addressed to SDGM/WCR.
(ii) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 12.01.2007 addressed to
SDGM/WCR.
(iii) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 25.05.2007 addressed to
SDGM/WCR.
(iv) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 26.06.2007 addressed to
SDGM/WCR.
(v) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 03.10.2007 addressed to GM/WCR.
(vi) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 20.03.2008 addressed to GM/WCR.
(vii) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 05.05.2008 addressed to Member
Engineering, Railway Board.
(viii) My letter No.W-HQ/CPDE/Con/Per dt. 06.06.2008 addressed to Member
Engineering, Railway Board.
The PIO’s reply.
PIO had replied that “with reference to your application, the desired information
is collected from Vigilance branch and CPO/WCR as a nodal officer of Vigilance branch
and sent to your.
The remarks on the items from Sl.No. 1 to 4 as mentioned in the application
received along with your letter no. refereed above is as follows:
Since the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated in the matter against the
concerned charged official in the case and is still going on against the applicant and yet
not completed, therefore, as per Para 8(1) (h) of Right of Information Act 2005, no
information can be given at this stage, which would impede the process of Investigation
or apprehension or “prosecution of offenders.”
The information sought in point No. 4 refers to a request by the appl8icant to
furnish SDGM, GM and Member (Engg.)’s remarks regarding representations made by
the applicant. It is stated that GM/WCR had forwarded his view on the above
representations to Member(Engg.). However, the view of GM are in the context of the
contract, “Fabricating, galvanizing, supplying and fixing of steel channel sleepers with
fittings by removing existing bridge timbers on various girder bridges in Jabalpur
division of W.C. Railway” and have a direct bearing on the investigation. Since the
inquiry is not yet over, it is not appropriate to divulge the contents at this stage.
As regards to item Sl.no. 4 the representations dt. 02.01.2007 & 20.03.2008 are
not available in the concerned file.”
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. S.K. Tiwari
Respondent : Mr. S.P. Singh PIO
The PIO states that the process of the DR has not been initiated. The Railway and the CT
investigation contains opinions of the people who have dealt with this case and once that
is disclosed at this stage both the opinions of the people who have dealt with the case and
also the names of the people who have dealt with the case will get disclosed. It is likely
that the accused can influence the people who have conducted the inquiry.
The Appellant states that in his appeal to the Appellate Authority, no reasons have been
quote by the PIO for the denial of information. The Appellate Authority while replying to
his appeal, vide his letter dated 08/12/2008 has stated that “if information is given to
applicant before conclusion of prosecution it can hamper the ongoing enquiry by way of
influencing the co-accused, hence documents are denied under 8(1) (h).”. The Appellant
states that the names of the co-accused and the inquiry officers can be severed under S 10
of the RTI Act by the department. The Appellant states that the detailed charge-sheet
given to him, the names of the co-accused have already been mentioned and the PIO is
using this as an excuse to deny the information.
Section 8 (1) (h) puts the responsibility on the PIO to squarely explain coherently how
giving the information would ‘impede the process of investigation.’ In this case the PIO
admits that the investigation has been concluded and the chargesheet has been given.
Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Bhat in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided On: 03.12.2007
has stated, “13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and
exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this
fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted
in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution
of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot
be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must
show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the
investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process
being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this
consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for
dodging demands for information’.
The PIO has not shown a reasonable ground to convince the Commission that disclosing
the information would ‘impede the process of investigation.’ The Commission however
directs the PIO to blank out the names of the co-accused and the inquiry officers by
severing this under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be given to the appellant after severing the names of the
co-accused and the inquiry officers before 25 May 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
11th May, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)