{"id":142082,"date":"2011-06-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-15T19:08:23","modified_gmt":"2017-01-15T13:38:23","slug":"mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                          ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                              Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796\n                                                         Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000247\/SG\/12643\n                                                                 Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000247\/SG\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Appellant:                     :      Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra\n                                      Door No. 80-17-18\/I, 1st Floor,\n                                      J.N.Road, Rajahmundry,\n                                      Andhra Pradesh-533 103.       .\n\nRespondent:                   :       Ms. Jyoti Mehta,\n                                      Director (Vigilance) &amp; P1O\n                                      Central Vigilance Commission,\n                                      Satarkta Bhavan, GPO Complex,\n                                      Block-A, INA, New Delhi-Il 00 23.\n\nRTI application:                      13\/05\/2010\nPIO reply:                            28\/05\/2010\nFirst appeal                          08\/06\/2010\nFAA order                             09\/07\/2010\nSecond appeal                         13\/10\/2010\n\nInformation sought:\n<\/pre>\n<p>A. Please provide all reports including recommendation enclosed in letter no. V\/04\/205\/599 dated 27.1 0-<br \/>\n09 from CVO-NALCO to CVC pointing out some faulty systems related to procedure followed by<br \/>\nNALCO in DPCs leading to issue of Office Memorandum from Director(Vigilance), CVC on 09\/11\/09.<br \/>\nB. Whether Ministry of Mines has submitted its comments as requested by Director(Vigilance), CVC to<br \/>\nCVO, Ministry of Mines on the above matter. If yes, please provide a copy of the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>PIO&#8217;s reply:\n<\/p>\n<p>Please refer to your RTI application dated 13\/05\/2010, on the subject cited above.<br \/>\nA. In this connection, It is intimated that the case is yet to be finalized and hence your request for supply<br \/>\nof copies of documents is denied in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act since disclosure of the<br \/>\ninformation at this stage would impede the process of the enquiry.<br \/>\nB-NO<\/p>\n<p>Grounds for First appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Based on CVO, NALCO&#8217;s report dated 27-10-09, CVC has issued instruction on 09- 11-09 to Ministry of<br \/>\nMines for its comments within a month. What does it mean? The urgency of the matter is evident. How<br \/>\ncan CVC take a U-turn to say that the enquiry is continuing when Ministry of Mines is yet to respond ?<br \/>\nHas CVC taken back its instruction to Ministry of Mines 7 Applicant is seeking only the reports submitted<br \/>\nby CVO-Nalco on which CVC has already acted and no other part. This is the fact; no reasoning can alter<br \/>\nit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Besides, CPIO has totally failed to establish\/prove how the disclosure is going to<br \/>\nimpede the process of enquiry. Which agency is conducting enquiry now? It may kindly be noted that<br \/>\napplicant is not seeking the documents from which CVO,NALCO gave the report. Then how the<br \/>\ndisclosure of report submitted by CVO, Nalco is going to impede the so-called-enquiry? How can the<br \/>\napplicant impede the process of the enquiry if this report is made available to him? Is it feasible? It may<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                 Page 1 of 3<\/span><br \/>\n kindly be noted that sharing the reports of CVO-Nalco can never tie the hands of Ministry of Mines or<br \/>\nCVC or any other Authority for that matter in deciding their course of action as they please. Therefore,<br \/>\nCPIO&#8217;s denial inherently sufferers from this fundamental flaw and is hit by section 7(8)(i) of RTI Act.<br \/>\nWhen Ministry of Mines has not responded to CVC&#8217;s Office Memorandum even after 6 months and<br \/>\nthereafter when CVC is not revealing the information under its custody, it smacks of some unholy<br \/>\nalliance. The moral decadence of constitutional instrumentalities must not be permitted to go unopposed.<br \/>\nThe preambular goal of RTI Act to ensure transparency &amp; accountability has been de facto liquidated by<br \/>\nCPIO &#8216;s above decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>FAA order:\n<\/p>\n<p>4. I have gone through the relevant records and find that this Commission, vide its Office Memorandum<br \/>\ndated 10.12.2009 has called for the comments\/action taken (on the report sent by Chief Vigilance Officer<br \/>\n(CVO&#8217;). NALCO, vide his letter V\/04\/205\/599 dated 27.10.2009) from CVO, NALCO. Ministry of<br \/>\nMines, which are still awaited. Hence, it is clear that the authorities concerned have not yet taken a final<br \/>\nview in the matter and the case has not reached its logical conclusion. The Appellant may &#8216;note&#8217; that the<br \/>\ncases where the authority concerned have not yet taken a final view in the matter, that is, the cases have<br \/>\nstill not reached their logical conclusion, are to be considered &#8216;under investigation&#8217;, as upheld by Central<br \/>\nIn formation Commission (CIC) in the case of Shri Shankar Sharma and other Vs Income Tax Department<br \/>\nin ease No. CJC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00007\/I0\/11 where CIC stated that &#8220;investigation would mean all actions of<br \/>\nlaw enforcement, disciplinary proceedings. enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation<br \/>\ncould be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that<br \/>\ninvestigation is taken&#8221;. In such cases, where the investigation is not complete, that is, the cases have not<br \/>\nbeen taken to its logical conclusion, the disclosure of information\/documents is exempt under Section 8(1)\n<\/p>\n<p>(h) of the RTI Act, as upheld by the CIC in case No. CIC\/AT\/2008\/01500 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/10155340\/\">Shri N. Saini vs.<br \/>\nLIC of India<\/a> in which CIC stated that &#8220;there is also public interest in keeping the proceedings of an<br \/>\nenquiry against the public servant confidential as any premature disclosure of the contents of such enquiry<br \/>\ncan compromise its objectivity as well as integrity. In fact, confidentiality is a key element of the<br \/>\nenquiry.&#8221; I, therefore, uphold the decision of the CPIO.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds for Second appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant has sought all reports submitted by CVO, NALCO to CVC, New Delhi after CVC sought<br \/>\nresponse of Ministry of Mines. Some of the said reports dealt with faulty system related to procedure<br \/>\nadopted by NALCO in DPCs.\n<\/p>\n<p>All reports were sought since PIO initially avoided to provide information by taking a plea (response to<br \/>\nprevious RTI application at page-I 3). When that was made clear in a separate application (present case),<br \/>\nshe denied the information u\/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. AA upheld the decision of PIO and hence this appeal.<br \/>\nNo case made out how the investigation would be impeded. It is already 6 months when Ministry of<br \/>\nMines had not responded to CVC&#8217;s instruction to respond within 1 month as is revealed from PIO&#8217;s<br \/>\nresponse to query &#8212; B (page-6).\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Absent;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Keshav Rao, Director on behalf of Ms. Jyoti Mehta, Director (Vigilance) &amp; P1O;\n<\/p>\n<p>        The respondent states that the investigation was stated in February 2010 and it is not yet over. The<br \/>\nrespondent admits that as per norms investigations should be finished within 03 months. He states that<br \/>\ninformation has been denied on the basis of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act since the investigation is not<br \/>\nover. The Commission asked the respondent if he could establish how the process of investigation would<br \/>\nbe impeded by disclosing the information. He states if information is disclosed at this stage it could be<br \/>\nused to file Court cases. If a citizen files a court case this cannot be considered impeding the process of<br \/>\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 2 of 3<\/span><\/p>\n<p> The Respondent has not been able to establish that disclosing the information would impede the process<br \/>\nof investigation. The Respondent has admitted that it has been over 15 months since the investigation has<br \/>\nbeen going on. Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of &#8220;information which would impede<br \/>\nthe process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114\/2007-<br \/>\n&#8220;13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the<br \/>\nexception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly<br \/>\nconstrued. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8,<br \/>\nexemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the<br \/>\nprosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a<br \/>\nground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory<br \/>\nreasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons<br \/>\nshould be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on<br \/>\nsome material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven<br \/>\nfor dodging demands for information.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal<br \/>\ninterpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in<br \/>\nSection 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on<br \/>\nthe exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in<br \/>\ntheir terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( <a href=\"\/doc\/641119\/\">See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta<\/a> 2005 (2)<br \/>\nSCC 201; <a href=\"\/doc\/499867\/\">B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> 2001 (7) SCC 231 and <a href=\"\/doc\/485394\/\">V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy<\/a><br \/>\n1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a<br \/>\njudicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>As per Section 19(5) &#8220;In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was<br \/>\njustified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the<br \/>\ncase may be, who denied the request.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Denial of a citizen&#8217;s fundamental right must be justified and the mere act of continuing an investigation<br \/>\ncannot be used to deny citizens&#8217; rights. Most investigations and investigators in the country appear to take<br \/>\nan enormous amount of time to decide or conclude anything. The Respondent admits that CVC&#8217;s<br \/>\nguidelines for completing all investigations is three months. In the instant case, it is admitted that over 15<br \/>\nmonths have elapsed. If investigating agencies in the country were to diligently enforce the timelines laid<br \/>\ndown, they would not have to resort to Section 8(1)(h) to refuse information. In view of this, the<br \/>\nCommission does not accept the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before 20 June 2011.<br \/>\nThis decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                        Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                              Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                           01 June 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (JK)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 3 of 3<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 ENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000247\/SG\/12643 Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000247\/SG Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant: : Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra Door No. 80-17-18\/I, 1st Floor, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-15T13:38:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-15T13:38:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-15T13:38:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-15T13:38:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-15T13:38:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011"},"wordCount":1625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011","name":"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-15T13:38:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-saroj-kumar-mishra-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-1-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Saroj Kumar Mishra vs Central Vigilance Commission on 1 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}