Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 4393/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000520
Dated, the 31st August, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Ms. Shahnaz Begum
Name of the Public Authority: M/o. Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises
Fact:
1. Both the parties were heard on 12/08/2009.
2. In the course of hearing, it emerged that the appellant's husband who
is an employee of the respondent, had submitted a compliant regarding
alleged financial irregularities committed by a Senior Official, who is identified
in the RTI application. The compliant has been investigated by the
respondent. In this backdrop, the appellant has asked for a copy of the
inquiry report, which was conducted on the basis of specific information
furnished by the appellant’s husband, who was present during the hearing.
3. The CPIO has refused to furnish the information u/s 8(1) (h) of the Act
on the ground that the competent authority has ordered for a conduct of fresh
enquiry for which an inquiry Officer has already been appointed. The
disclosure of the report in question would interfere and impede the process of
investigation in the matter. The CPIO has however, not indicated as to how
the disclosure of information would either obstruct the enquiry proceedings or
impede the process of investigation in question.
Decision:
4. A major concern of the RTI Act is to contain corruption in public life. In
the instant case, the issue raised by the appellant relate to misuse of official
position by a senior officer for gaining financial benefits such as fraudulent
drawl of salary, travelling allowance, mis-appropriate of funds, etc. The facts
are of course, known to the respondent and the appellant’s husband, who
being an internal person, has reported the matter to the respondent, which
has got the matter investigated. Now, a question has been raised as to why
the second enquiry has been ordered? Is it to protect the alleged offender? It
is through total transparency in the conduct of fair and objective enquiry
proceedings that the facts about the corrupt practices could be un-earth.
5. In view of the fact that the matter pertain to alleged financial
irregularities committed by an official and that the respondent has not
explained as to how the disclosure of the information asked for would impede
the proposed second enquiry, the denial of information u/s 8(1)(h) is not
acceptable and therefore set aside. The CPIO is directed to provide a copy of
the enquiry report, in question, within 15 days from the date of issue of this
decision, failing which penalty would be imposed. A compliance report should
also be submitted to the Commission at the earliest.
6. The appeal is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Ms. Shahnaz Begum, 229-Roshan Bagh, Mirza Ghalib Road,
Allahabad – 211 003.
2. Smt. Saritra Puri, Dy. Director & Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, O/o the
Development Commissioner, Nirman Bhawan, 7th Floor, Maulana
Azad Road, New Delhi – 110 108.
3. Sh. K.S. Luddu, Appellate Authority, MSME, O/o – the Development
Commissioner, Nirman Bhawan, 7th Floor, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi – 110 108.