{"id":216759,"date":"2009-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-27T03:19:25","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T21:49:25","slug":"shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00060 dated 28.1.2008\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant        -          Shri P. S. Naidu\nRespondent           -      Central Vigilance Commission\n                                  Decision announced : 6.8.2009\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By an application of 7.1.07, received in the CVC on 16.1.07, Shri P.S.
\nNaidu of Masab Tank, Hyderabad (AP) sought the following information from
\nCPIO Shri K. L. Ahuja, Director, CVC :\n<\/p>\n
         “1)   Copy of Disciplinary Authority’s recommendations to the
\n               CVC at the First and Second stage pertaining to the
\n               disciplinary action against me in the a\/c of M\/s SSP Polymer
\n               Industries Ltd. (Hyderabad Main Br.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2)    Copy of Disciplinary Authority’s recommendations to CVC at
\n               the first and second stage pertaining to Shri P.R. Kalyan
\n               Raman and Shri D.V.Rao (both have been charged for
\n               lapses in the same account M\/s SSP Polymer Industries
\n               Ltd.) for joint involvement of alleged irregularities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3)    Copy of CVC’s advice in terms of its circular No. 99\/Vg\/66
\n               dated 28.9.2000 pertaining to me, Shri P. V. Kalyanaraman
\n               and Shri D.V.Rao in the matter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4)    Copy of Disciplinary Authority’s recommendations to the
\n               CVC in the first and the second stage pertaining to the
\n               disciplinary cases of Shri P.V.G. Murlikrishna, Shri P.V.
\n               Premnath and Shri P. Satyanarayana in the A\/c of M\/s
\n               Electronic Machine Tools of Azamabad Br., Hyderabad.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         To this Shri Naidu received the following response from Shri A. K. Gupta,
\nUnder Secy., CVC dated 20.6.07 :\n<\/p>\n
         “S. No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
         The extracts of Disciplinary Authority’s recommended actions to the
\n         CVC at the 1st stage advice and 2nd stage advice pertaining to Shri
\n         P.S. Naidu, received vide letter No. Vig. HO.256:8323 dated
\n         7.2.2001 and Vig:Hyd:7(B):5510 dated 21.12.2001 are enclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         S. No. 2 to 4<\/span><\/p>\n
         The information in respect of other officers is denied u\/s 8(1)(j) of
\n         the RTI Act, since the information is personal to other officers and
\n         would affect their privacy.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
       Aggrieved by this response, Shri Naidu moved his first appeal on 7.7.07
\nbefore the Appellate Authority, CVC pleading as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “The section 8(1)(j), itself has an enabling cause, which states that
\n      the Central \/ State Public Information Office may disclose such
\n      information, if larger Public interest is justified. In the instant case
\n      the larger public interest lies in exposing the real culprit at high
\n      places, who is responsible for fostering a Bad account promoted by
\n      disreputed persons and causing eventually loss to public money.
\n      The disclosure would greatly sub serve one of the awed objectives
\n      of justice, which is well enshrined in the popular statement, quote “If
\n      a culprit is not punished, at least it should be ensured that an
\n      innocent is not put to gallows”. By not making available the
\n      information being sought, I will be deprived of proving my non-
\n      complicity in the matter and at the same time may not be in a
\n      position to expose the real culprits. Further, the section 8(1)(J)
\n      would derail the quintessence of RTI Act viz transparency. On this
\n      ground any information pertaining to a third person can be put
\n      under the carpet and such denials shall benefit the offender and
\n      deny succor to the aggrieved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Upon this, Shri V. Kannan in his order of 9.8.07, has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “I find that the recommendations of the Bank in respect of the
\n      disciplinary proceedings as mentioned in your application were
\n      received in the Commission under fiduciary relationship. The CIC
\n      in its decision No. 55\/IC(A)\/2006 on the appeal of Shri Chaman
\n      Mathur has held that information submitted in fiduciary capacity
\n      cannot be disclosed without the concurrence of 3rd party u\/s 11(1)
\n      of the RTI Act. As the Bank in response to notice u\/s 11 of the RTI
\n      Act had submitted that the information in respect of other officers
\n      might not be disclosed, I uphold the decision of the CPIO denying
\n      you the information. However, copies of CVC advice dated 20.3.01
\n      and 28.1.02 are enclosed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Appellant’s prayer in his second appeal before us is as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “I request you to kindly hold an inquiry under Sec. 18(2) of the
\n      Act, as there are valid and cogent grounds to render justice to
\n      me and to expose the delinquent officers who have caused
\n      huge loss to the exchequer by conspiring with higher ups.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He has sought support for this plea with the following contention:\n<\/p>\n
      “What information I sought is the outcome of a Departmental inquiry
\n      and, therefore, it cannot be attributed to invasion of privacy. The
\n      Bank for fear of being exposed to its partisan, skewed and
\n      perfunctory investigation is denying the information being sought.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
        The appeal was heard through videoconference on 6th July, 2009.         The
\nfollowing are present:\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant: (as NIC Studio, Hyderabad)
\n        Shri P.S. Naidu
\n       Respondent:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri Arun Nahar, Advisor
\n       Shri Raj Kumar, Section Officer<\/p>\n
       Shri Arun Nahar, Advisor, CVC submitted copies of the objections raised
\nby Bank of India to the disclosure of information sought by appellant Shri P.S.
\nNaidu. Appellant Shri Naidu on the other hand submitted that the information
\nsought was with regard to a public enquiry and, therefore, cited provisos to
\nSections 8 (1) (j) and 11 (1), both of which refer in different manner to the public
\ninterest override.\n<\/p>\n
       We agree that it cannot be argued that where an individual is a subject of
\na departmental enquiry then exemption can be sought as having no relationship
\nto any public activity and, therefore, public interest. However, the third party in
\nthis case is General Manager (HR), Bank of India, Mumbai. The third party i.e.
\nGeneral Manager (HR), Bank of India, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla
\nComplex, Bandra (East), Mumbai has every right to be heard before a decision is
\nfinalised in the matter. The hearing was, therefore, adjourned to 5th August, 2009
\nat 12.30 p.m. by videoconference when current parties were required to be
\npresent together with third party. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 5.8.2009
\nthrough videoconference. The following are present:\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant at NIC Studio, Hyderabad
\n             Shri P. S. Naidu
\n       Respondent at CIC Studio, New Delhi
\n             Shri Arun Nahar, Advisor
\n       Third Party at NIC Studio, Mumbai
\n             Shri P.A. Kalyan Sundaram, GM(HR) BOI, Mumbai
\n             Shri M.C. Mule, CVO, Bank of India
\n             Shri Satish Chander, CAPIO & DGM (Law) BOI<\/p>\n
       Shri Arun Nahar, Advisor CVC submitted that refusal to provide the
\ninformation by CVC was purely on the basis of the objection raised by the Bank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He, therefore, had nothing further to submit in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
        Respondent Shri P. A. Kalyan Sundaram, GM(HR) submitted that the
\nBank has no objection to disclosure of information concerning appellant Sh.
\nNaidu. Their objection has arisen regarding providing information on the enquiry
\nconcerning S\/Shri P. R. Kalyanraman, D.V. Rao, P.V.G. Murlikrishnan, P. V.
\nPrem Nath and P.S. Satyanarain. Shri M. C. Mule CVO<\/a> further submitted that
\nthe information asked for at Point No. 4 in fact concerns a different case with
\nwhich Shri Naidu has no connection whatever and should not be of concern to
\nhim. Shri Kalyan Sundaram also submitted that the Bank follows a hierarchical
\nstructure and, therefore, the roles assigned to different officers were different
\nhaving little or no bearing on each other. Hence sharing of information with
\nregard to officers with different responsibilities would not be in order. On the plea
\nof appellant Sh. Naidu that he needed this information so as to compare the
\naction taken with regard to that taken in his own case Shri Satish Chander,
\nCAPIO and DGM (Law) submitted that such a plea would not stand in Court.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant Shri Naidu submitted that there is no way in which disclosure of
\nthe information in this case can lead to endangering the life or physical safety of
\nany person or identify the source of information given in confidence for law
\nenforcement or security purposes. There was therefore no ground for exemption
\nu\/s 8(1) (g). He further argued that the information sought cannot qualify for
\nexemption under sec. 8(1)(j) since the proviso to sec. 8(1) (j) provides that “the
\ninformation which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall
\nnot be denied to any person”. Shri Naidu also submitted that the Manual of
\nInstructions of the Bank defines the role-play by officers and, therefore, the plea
\nof respondents Shri Kalyan Sundaram G.M. that there is no such role other than
\na hierarchal structure is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
                            DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       There are two grounds on which the GM (HR) BOI Mumbai has sought
\nexemption from disclosure of the information sought against questions 2, 3 & 4 of
\nappellant Shri Naidu’s application. The question of whether an argument will<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span>
\n stand in court is immaterial in that we are concerned only with providing of
\ninformation held, and not what may be construed wherefrom. These grounds are
\nsub sections (g) & (j) of sec. 8(1). These two sub sections read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           8(1)(g)
\n           information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or
\n           physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or
\n           assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security
\n           purposes 1 ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           8(1)(j)
\n           information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
\n           which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, 2 or which
\n           would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
\n           unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
\n           Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be,
\n           is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
\n           such information:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Since information sought concerns the result of enquiries conducted
\nagainst certain officers, and do not constitute information given in confidence by
\nthese officers to an investigating agency, we cannot see how the conditions on
\nwhich this exemption stands, as underlined by us, can apply under sub-section\n<\/p>\n
(g) of sec. 8(1) in this case.\n<\/p>\n
           On the question of sec. 8(1)(j) on the other hand, we have no clear
\ndefinition of what is meant by “invasion of privacy” within the RTI Act. We have
\nin India no equivalent of UK’s Date Protection Act, 1998, Sec 2 of which, titled
\n‘Sensitive Personal Data’, reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data
\n           consisting of information as to:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           a)     The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           b)     His political opinions.\n           c)     His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature.\n           d)     Whether he is a member of a Trade Union.\n           e)     His physical or mental health or condition.\n           f)     His sexual life.\n           g)     The commission or alleged commission by him of any\n                  offence.\n\n1<\/span>\n    Underlined by us for reference\n2<\/span>\n    Underlined by us\n\n\n                                              5<\/span>\n        h)     Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to\n<\/pre>\n
              have been committed by him, the disposal of such
\n              proceedings or the sentence of any court in such
\n              proceedings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       If we were to construe privacy to mean protection of personal data, this
\nwould be a suitable starting point to help define the concept. The US
\nRestatement of the Law, Second, Torts, 652 on the other hand, defines the
\ninvasion of Privacy in the following manner:\n<\/p>\n
       One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the
\n       solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is
\n       subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the
\n       intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Besides, the Supreme Court of India in Kharak Singh’s case (AIR 1963
\nSC 1295) held that right to privacy is a guaranteed right under the Constitution of
\nIndia. In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994(6) SCC 632 and in P.U.C.L. v.
\nUnion of India, (1997) ISCC 301 Supreme Court reiterated the law that right to
\nprivacy is part of the right to ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ enshrined under Article 21
\nof the Constitution. In these decisions, the Supreme Court placed reliance on the
\nInternational Treaties to which India is signatory and came to a conclusion that
\nArticle 21 read with relevant Article in the International Treaty\/Covenant would
\nlead to a conclusion that right to privacy is part of Article 21.\n<\/p>\n
       The Supreme Court recognized that right to privacy by itself has not been
\nidentified under the Constitution and that as a concept; it may be too broad and
\nmoralistic to define it judicially. Whether the right to privacy can be claimed or
\nhas been infringed in a given case would depend on facts of each case.
\nDescribing the origin of the right to privacy, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
\nRajagopal’s case cited above observed as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
       “The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept
\n       originated in the field to Tort Law, under which a new cause of
\n       action for damages resulting from unlawful invasion of privacy was
\n       recognised. This right has two aspects which are but two faces of
\n       the same coin: (1) the General law of privacy which affords a tort
\n       action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy
\n       and (2) the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy
\n       which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span>
\n        invasion….. In recent times, however, this right has acquired a
\n       constitutional status.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       If the information sought, therefore, would amount to invasion of privacy it
\ncould no doubt have been denied. However, the investigation on which
\ninformation has been sought involved a decidedly public activity. In this case
\nwhat is sought is only a copy of the disciplinary authority’s recommendations to
\nCVC and a copy of CVC’s advice meaning that not even proceedings for any
\noffence alleged to have been committed, the disposal of such proceedings or
\nindeed a copy of the original enquiry report has been called for. Clearly this is
\nnot a case where disclosure will amount to invasion of privacy. CPIO Shri Arun
\nNahar, Advisor, CVC will therefore, now provide this information to Shri
\nNaidu within ten working days from the date of receipt of this Decision
\nNotice. This appeal is allowed. There will be no costs<\/p>\n
       Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber on
\nthis sixth day of August, 2009. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n6.8.2009<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n6.8.2009<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00060 dated 28.1.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri P. S. Naidu Respondent – Central Vigilance Commission Decision announced : 6.8.2009 Facts : By an application of 7.1.07, received in the […]<\/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-216759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-26T21:49:25+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T21:49:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2271,\"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\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T21:49:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-26T21:49:25+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T21:49:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009"},"wordCount":2271,"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\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009","name":"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T21:49:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-s-naidu-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-6-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri P. S. Naidu vs Central Vigilance Commission on 6 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/216759","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=216759"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216759\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}