Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
(Adjunct to Decision No.318/IC(A)/2006 dated 3/10/2006)
Decision No.4156/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00711
Dated, the 10th July, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. Ravinder Kumar
Name of the Public Authority: Union Public Service Commission
i
Facts
:
1. In our Decision No.318/IC(A)/2006 dated 3rd October 2006, the following
Decision notice was issued:
“The information sought relate to note sheets of the files dealing with
disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty. Under the law, there
are established procedures that are followed to ensure justice to the
alleged offenders. The relevant details form the basis for formulating
advice given by the UPSC to the concerned administrative Ministry, a
copy of which is also supplied to the affected officer. The revealing of the
note sheets containing the remarks and opinion of various officials on the
matter of imposition of penalty, would identify their names, which might
endanger their lives. The disclosure of such information is therefore
barred u/s 8(1)(e) & (h) of the Act. In view of this, the decision of the
appellate authority is upheld.
As such, there is no denial of information to the appellant as the CPIO and
the appellate authority have given a detailed response to the appellant.
Moreover, there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of information
relating to the prosecution of alleged offenders under the Civil Services
conduct Rules.”
2. Being not satisfied with the above decision, the appellant submitted a
review petition before the Commission, which was examined and rejected. The
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
appellant was accordingly communicated vide the Commission’s letter dated
April 19, 2007.
3. Subsequently, the appellant challenged the Commission’s decision before
the High Court of Delhi, which has passed the following order:
¾ “The prayer made by the petitioner for copies of the note sheets was
rejected by the UPSC. The appeal filed before the appellate authority was
also dismissed on 19.09.2006. The petitioner has thereafter, stated to
have filed an appeal before the CIC which was also dismissed on
03.10.2006. The petitioner who appears in person submits that the CIC
has now given a decision in January, 2007, Shri. Pyare Lal Verma Vs.
Ministry of Railways by virtue of which the CIC has held that the note
sheets form part of the file and public authorities should give copies of the
same. The petitioner in person prays that this matter may be remanded
back to CIC to enable the CIC to hear the parties afresh in the light of the
aforestated Full Bench judgment. Counsel for the respondents have no
objection. Consequently, taking into consideration the stand of the
parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the CIC to
issue notice to the parties and thereafter pass an order in the matter.
Needles to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the CIC, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to such
remedy as may be available to him in accordance with the law.
¾ With these directions the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(WP( C )No.4374/2007)
4. In compliance with the Court’s order, notices were issued to both the
parties for the hearing held on 9/7/2009. The following were present:
Appellant: Sh. Ravinder Kumar
Respondents: Sh. Y.P. Gupta, CPIO & Dy. Secretary
Sh. Kamal Bhagat, Jt. Secretary
Sh. R.K. Sinha, J.S.
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate
5. The appellant reiterated his earlier plea for providing access to the note
sheets containing the details of remarks and observations made by various
officials of the respondent, in the matter of disciplinary action taken against the
appellant. In particular, he stated that the Commission has allowed disclosure of
the file notings in different cases. Therefore, he should also be provided the
copies of note sheets as asked for by him.
2
6. The CPIO reiterated its earlier stand and maintained that the note sheets
asked for pertain to the information of different departments and offices in the
matter of disciplinary action against the appellant, the disclosure of which is not
in public interest. Hence, the requested information mainly, the note sheets
containing the opinion and advices rendered by various officials cannot be
disclosed, as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
Decision:
7. The information asked for relate to the file notings containing the views
and opinions of various officials, who have contributed to the process of the
conduct of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the charged officer. While
such an action is taken by a public authority against its employee is largely in the
public interest, the request for disclosure of the details by the charged official is
mainly for promotion of personal interest. It is accepted that the note sheets of a
file are covered under the definition of “information” and, therefore, a CPIO is free
to invoke section 8(1) of the Act for denial of information for which valid
justification has to be provided.
8. In the context of the disciplinary proceeding, which is initiated in the public
interest as per the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, the CPIO has justly invoked
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act for denial of access to the file notings containing opinion
and advices rendered by the officials of the respondent.
9. In view of this, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Shri. Ravinder Kumar, IPS, Room No.601, GOI’s MESS, PHQ, Shimla –
171 002.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle3
2. Shri. K.M. Shahid, JS & CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur
House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110 069.
3. Sh. D.K. Samantaray, Addl. Secretary & Appellate Authority, Union Public
Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110
069.
4