CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000707
Dated, the 04th December, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Mahendra Narayan Ghosh
Respondents : Coal India Limited
Matter was heard through videoconferencing on 17.11.2009 in the
presence of both parties. Appellant, the CPIO and the AA were present
at NIC VC facility at Kolkata. Commission conducted the hearing from
its New Delhi office.
2. At the outset, appellant stated that his second-appeal should be
limited to queries in his RTI-application dated 20.07.2008, appearing at
Sl.Nos.xvii, xxii and xxiii.
Item at Sl.No.xvii: Copies of EERs/PAR in respect of M.N. Ghosh for
the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-
2007, 2007-2008.
3. Respondents stated during hearing that they were not in a
position to provide this information to the appellant because on
reviewing their records, they found that these reports for the years
mentioned by him were never written. As they do not hold this
information, they were not in a position to provide to the appellant any
part of it.
Decision:
4. A public authority has to be in control of a requested information
in terms of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act read with Section 2(f) before its
disclosure obligation can be considered under the provisions of the RTI
Act. Insofar as per the statement of the representatives of the public
authority, the above-mentioned information was not in their control, it
is not possible to authorize its disclosure.
5. There shall be no obligation to disclose this item of information.
AT-04122009-04.doc
Page 1 of 4
Item at Sl.No.xxii: Copies of the note of CVO written to Disciplinary
Authority in respect of M N Ghosh relating to initiation of Disciplinary
proceeding on the alleged plea of educational incompetence of
M N Ghosh.
6. It is the argument of the respondents that all internal
communication between the Vigilance Department and the Disciplinary
Authority of the public authority in respect of any employee is by
definition confidential. No vigilance authority engages in discussion
about the conduct and the behaviour of an employee through open
correspondence. If and when, following the report of the Vigilance
Branch, the Disciplinary Authority takes a view to start an enquiry or
departmental proceeding against a given employee, such an employee is
allowed access to all relevant records and documents including the
grounds on which the proceedings against him were drawn up. The
internal communications between the Vigilance Branch and the
Disciplinary Authority if allowed to be prematurely disclosed,
independent of the departmental enquiry, it has every potentiality to
prejudice that enquiry and even impair its process due to intrusive
interference by the interested parties.
7. Respondents, therefore, contended that all such communications
between the Vigilance Branch and the Disciplinary Authority were kept
confidential in public interest under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence
Act.
8. They further pointed out that a respondent-public authority was
itself a third-party within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the RTI Act,
which read as follows:-
‘”third party” means a person other than the citizen making a
request for information and includes a public authority.’
9. In their contention, the respondent-public authority as a
third-party was competent to hold vigilance-related information as
confidential within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. These
should be disclosed only if the public interest in its disclosure
“outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of
such third-party”. Respondents have argued that there was absolutely
no public interest in disclosing of this information. They further argued
that its disclosure at this stage, independent of the departmental
proceeding against the appellant, could be doubtless injurious to the
AT-04122009-04.doc
Page 2 of 4
protected interest ⎯ confidentiality of a vigilance-related internal
communication between two officials of the public authority.
10. Respondents have further submitted that a petitioner such as this
appellant should not be allowed to go ‘forum hunting’ for documents he
might be interested in. He will have every possibility to demand
specific sets of records and documents from the Enquiry Officer or the
Disciplinary Authority in order to defend his interest and position in that
disciplinary proceeding. There are specific channels of appeal if certain
document / record is denied to him. Disclosure of any document /
record which may be related with an ongoing investigation or
disciplinary proceeding, through RTI Act, would amount to interfering
and impeding that proceeding and, therefore, attract exemption under
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
11. I accept the reasons presented by the respondents for not
disclosing the above information.
12. This is in conformity with Commission’s earlier decision in U.R.M.
Raju Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Trust; Appeal Nos.CIC/AT/A/2008/01148
& 01156; Date of Decision: 13.03.2009 and M.L. Kajodia Vs. Bank Note
Press, Dewas; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000619 & CIC/AT/C/2009
/000538; Date of Decision: 16.09.2009.
13. There shall be no disclosure obligation for this item of
information.
Item at Sl.No.xxiii: Note of Chairman, CIL containing his
recommendation made to CVC dated 27th July, 2008.
14. Respondents have argued that this information is also part of
internal communication between the Disciplinary Authority and the
Central Vigilance Commission and is covered by the reasons spelt-out
for the preceding query.
Decision:
15. I’m in agreement with the respondents that this item of
information is also fully covered by the Commission’s earlier decisions
referred at paragraph 12 above. As such, this item of information need
not be disclosed to the appellant.
AT-04122009-04.doc
Page 3 of 4
16. Appeal rejected.
17. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-04122009-04.doc
Page 4 of 4