CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00485
Dated, the 16th October, 2008.
Appellant : Shri P.K. Sharma
Respondents : Ministry of Earth Science
This second-appeal by Shri P.K. Sharma came up for hearing on
14.10.2008. Appellant was present. Respondents were present through
Smt.Vasudha Gupta, Director and Shri T.R. Gill, Deputy Secretary.
2. From the documents submitted in this matter, it is noted that the appellant
and the public authority have been engaged in long legal battles in regard to
certain punitive actions which the superior officers of the public authority have
been taking against the appellant from time to time. Appellant has made out the
case that the information should be supplied to him through certified copies as
requested by him in his RTI-application dated 15.11.2007 regardless of whether
the matter related to the documents requested by him is pending in law courts or
has since been disposed of. According to him, disclosure of the requested
information under the RTI Act cannot be stopped only on the ground that the
matter was sub-judice. An additional plea made by the appellant in respect of the
last part of his request for information is that the requested information could not
be denied to him on the ground of it belonging to a third-party. He has argued
that the information sought by him was nothing other than documents related to
charges framed and later-on dropped against one, Shri I.P. Singh, Upper Division
Clerk. According to the appellant, the charges framed against the appellant and
Shri I.P. Singh, the third-party had a common cause of action. While the charges
against Shri I.P. Singh were later-on dropped, these were rigorously pursued
against appellant quite discriminatingly. As the fact of wrongful use of public
authority’s discretion in dropping the charges against one officer in the same
matters, while continuing it against the appellant, attracted public interest and
thus was liable for disclosure regardless of whether it was impacted by the
exemption Sections of the RTI Act.
3. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the documents, I do find merit in
the appellant’s submission that the requested information should be disclosed to
him as these did not attract any of the exemption sub-Sections of Section 8(1) of
the RTI Act and because in the matter of the last part of the RTI-request of the
appellant, disclosure was warranted by public interest.
Page 1 of 2
4. In view of the above, it is directed that within two weeks of the receipt of
these orders, CPIO shall provide to the appellant certified copies of all
documents requested by him through his RTI-application dated 15.11.2007.
CPIO shall charge and collect from the appellant such fee as may be applicable
under the extant Rules.
5. During the hearing, it was pointed out by the respondents that one item of
information requested by the appellant at query no.10 (Appeal U/R 23 CCS
(CCA) Rule 1965 referred to appellate authority at. 7-02-05 filed by Mr.P.K.
Sharma), was not available in the respondents’ record in original. They,
therefore, expressed their inability to provide certified copy of the document
which was not available in original but only a copy of it was found on the
records.
6. As it would be inappropriate to provide certified copy of the document
which is not in original, respondents may provide to the appellant only the
photocopy of the above-mentioned document.
7. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2