CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01213 dated .200
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri K. K. Sood
Respondent - 1. Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
2. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced: 30.12.2009
Facts
:
Shri K. K. Sood, Section Officer (Retd), Staff Selection Commission, of
Janakpuri, New Delhi applied to the Secretary, SSC on 6.11.07 seeking the
following information:
“I require certain documents relating to Notings and
Correspondence portions of relevant case on the basis of which
sanction had been issued for prosecuting me by the CBI from the
period from 23.11.1998 to till date, the prosecution of the
undersigned by the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and
Staff Selection Commission within 7 days. The next date of hearing
of the case is fixed for 22.11.2007.’To this Shri K. K. Sood received a response on 26.11.07 from Shri V. K.
Aggarwal, Under Secy. (Admn) SSC refusing the information sought u/s 8(1) (h)
of the RTI Act 2005 “as your case is under prosecution.’ Shri Sood then moved
an appeal before the Appellate Authority, SSC pleading as below:
“Refusal for not providing these documents may hamper to get
justice to defend my case.
I, therefore, request you to consider my request sympathetically so
that I may prepare my defence in the above Hon’ble Court.’
On January 11, 2008 CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal US (A) conveyed to Shri
Sood the decision of the Appellate Authority, as below:
“The Appellate Authority is of the view that the requisite information
can not be provided u/s 8 (h) of RTI Act, 2005.”
1
Shri Sood has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“I humbly request that relevant portion of notings and
correspondence may kindly be got available so that I may defend
my case sympathetically.’The appeal was heard on 14-12-2009. The following are present;-
Appellant
Shri K. K. Sood.
Respondent
Shri R. K. Gambhir, US, SSC
Shri Rajinder Prasad, Asstt.
This is clearly a case of refusal of information by pleading exemption
under section 8 (1) (h). For this purpose and in accordance with the decision of
the Delhi High Court in W. P. No. 3114/2007 – Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors., it
requires to be established, on refusal of information, that the disclosure of the
information would impede either the investigation or the prosecution or the
apprehension of the offender. In this case, we have examined the noting on file.
The prosecution has been launched on the recommendations of the CBI, which
is at present prosecuting the case. Any decision on whether exemption from
disclosure can be claimed under section 8 (1) (h), will, therefore, have to be
based on grounds submitted by the CBI, which is the prosecuting agency and
can alone describe the manner in which the disclosure of the information sought
by appellant Shri K. K. Sood will impede the prosecution. To enable the SP, CBI
to do so, the hearing was adjourned to 30-12-2009 at 4.00 p.m., when the
concerned SP, CBI will also appear before us to advise whether the exemption
claimed through application of section 8 (1) (h) may or may not be allowed
Accordingly the following appeared before us on 30.12.2009:
Appellant
Shri K. K. Sood
Respondents
Shri R. K. Gambhir, US, SSC
Shri Rajinder Prasad, Asstt. SSC
Shri Sumit Sharan, SP, CBI2
Shri Sumit Sharan, SP, CBI submitted that since the matter is under
prosecution, the charge-sheet with all related documents has already been
supplied to appellant Shri K. K. Sood. In answer to a specific question raised by
Shri Sood in the hearing as to who was responsible for complaining against him,
Shri Sharan referred to the FIR, a copy of which is already in the possession of
appellant Shri Sood indicating that Under Secretary Shri Yadav of the S.S.C. had
made the complaint and the report of the investigating officer clarifies as to how
appellant Shri Sood has become the accused. Upon this Shri K. K. Sood
presented a number of documents in support of his claim that he had an
unblemished record of service until this charge was brought against him shortly
before his retirement. He pleaded that he be given a certificate of unblemished
record of service in the SSC.
DECISION NOTICE
Having heard the parties and examined the records, we are of the view
that such information, as is material to the prosecution of appellant Shri K. K.
Sood, has already been provided to him. Nor was appellant Shri Sood able to
identify any specific document which he desires in addition to those already
provided to him, other than to plead that because he had an unblemished service
record in the SSC, this needs to be certified by that Organization. The latter is a
plea for the consideration of SSC. However, on the substance of the appeal, we
find that there is no merit and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
30.12.2009
3
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
30.12.2009
4