{"id":41041,"date":"2008-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-14T11:51:10","modified_gmt":"2016-09-14T06:21:10","slug":"smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00993 dated 2.11.2007\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant        -          Smt. K. Kalaiselvi, Nagpur\nRespondent           -      Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n<p>:\n<\/p>\n<p>     By an RTI application of 8.5.07 Ms. Kalaiselvi of Nagpur, Maharashtra<br \/>\napplied to the PIO, CVC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;1.    In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a Chairman of<br \/>\n                a nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary authority<br \/>\n                and inquiring officer for the Chairman?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>         2.     In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a General<br \/>\n                Manager of a nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary<br \/>\n                authority and inquiring officer for the Chairman?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>         3.     In case of allegations by a subordinate made against the top<br \/>\n                executives of a nationalized bank, whether the allegations<br \/>\n                can be inquired by a subordinate of the top executives?&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     To this she received a reply from CPIO Shri K. L. Ahuja, Director, CVC on<br \/>\n8.6.07, as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;You may refer to the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, and\/<br \/>\n         or the Service Regulations, pertaining to the concerned executives<br \/>\n         for reply to the queries raised in paras 1 and 2 of your letter under<br \/>\n         reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>         A complaint involving a Presidential appointee may be forwarded to<br \/>\n         the CVO of the Banking Division. The latter in the first instance<br \/>\n         would decide whether the information involves a vigilance angle or<br \/>\n         not. If so, he would register that as a complaint in the Vigilance<br \/>\n         Complaint Register and would process the matter further to decide<br \/>\n         whether the allegations are general in nature or vague and deserve<br \/>\n         to be filed, or the matter requires further investigation. In the latter<br \/>\n         case, he would also decide as to whether investigation into the<br \/>\n         allegations should be entrusted to the CBI or taken up<br \/>\n         departmentally.      If it is decided to investigate the matter<br \/>\n         departmentally he may, in his discretion, take assistance of or seek<br \/>\n         factual reports from the RBI or the CVO or any other authority of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                               1<\/span><br \/>\n       the Bank concerned. (Para 9.3 of Special Chapter on Vigilance<br \/>\n      Management in Public Sector Banks refers).&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      By another application Ms. K. Kalaiselvi vide letter dated 18.5.07<br \/>\nrequested CVC to furnish certain information, as below:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;1.    Knowingly, but to give trouble and harassment, a superior<br \/>\n             posted an officer who does not know Hindi\/ Marathi to a<br \/>\n             place where the vernacular language is Hindi\/ Marathi. In<br \/>\n             that circumstance, the officer is blindly passing the Hindi\/<br \/>\n             Marathi instruments thus miserably failing to check the<br \/>\n             correctness of the Hindi\/ Marathi instruments, but doing the<br \/>\n             same out of fear of further harassment. This put the bank<br \/>\n             and customers at risk. Please inform me whether the act of<br \/>\n             the superior amounting to misuse of his official powers?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      2.     Knowingly, but to give trouble and harassment, a superior<br \/>\n             posted an engineer recruited for a specialized job, to do<br \/>\n             another job.     Under fear of further harassment, the<br \/>\n             specialized officer doing that job without knowing the<br \/>\n             concept and consequence.         This put the bank and<br \/>\n             customers at high risk. Please inform me whether the act of<br \/>\n             the superior amounting to misuse of his official position?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In reply the PIO held that RTI does not cast on the public authority any<br \/>\nobligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to<br \/>\nquestions other than seeking information, and that the petitioner&#8217;s right extends<br \/>\nonly to seeking information as defined in sec. 2(f).      PIO also directed the<br \/>\nappellant to ask for copies of documents containing the information and not to<br \/>\nseek opinions through questionnaire. In the form of a questionnaire the request<br \/>\nfell beyond the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       This was followed by a representation to CPIO dated 5.7.07 in which<br \/>\nappellant Ms. Kalaiselvi pleaded as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;I requested for 3 information vide my letter dated 8.5.2007 (copy<br \/>\n      enclosed). But you have replied vide letter dated 8.6.2007 (copy<br \/>\n      enclosed), advised me to refer certain service regulations for the<br \/>\n      first 2 information sought by me as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    1. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a Chairman of a<br \/>\n      nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary authority and<br \/>\n      inquiring officer for the Chairman?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>   2. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a General Manager<br \/>\n      of a nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary authority and<br \/>\n      inquiring officer for the Chairman?\n<\/p>\n<p>       Since CVC is the nodal authorities, you can easily furnish this<br \/>\n       information, instead of asking me to get the information from some<br \/>\n       reference regulations, which would be very difficult to get. I request<br \/>\n       you to furnish this two in formations early.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Regarding the 3rd information requested that,<br \/>\n       In case of allegations by a subordinate made against the top<br \/>\n       executives of a nationalized bank, whether the allegations can be<br \/>\n       inquired by a subordinate of the top executives? For that you have<br \/>\n       replied that a complaint involving a Presidential appointee may be<br \/>\n       forwarded to the CBO of the Banking Division and they would<br \/>\n       decide whether the information involves a vigilance angle or not. I<br \/>\n       do not know who are presidential appointees? This information is<br \/>\n       totally different from the information I want e.g. say a junior officer,<br \/>\n       a subordinate, made an allegation against the senior executive of a<br \/>\n       bank and the executive appointed his subordinate to conduct the<br \/>\n       inquire against the allegations made against him by a junior officer.<br \/>\n       In such circumstances, I called the following information from you<br \/>\n       that &#8220;In case of allegations by a subordinate made against the top<br \/>\n       executives of a nationalized bank, whether the allegations can be<br \/>\n       inquired by a subordinate of the top executives? Please furnish me<br \/>\n       the specific information that whether a subordinate can be<br \/>\n       appointed to inquire into allegation made against a superior by<br \/>\n       another subordinate by way of departmental inquiry or the concern<br \/>\n       executive or the respective authorities to refer the same only to<br \/>\n       CVO of the Banking Division, who alone empowered to conduct<br \/>\n       inquire under such circumstances? I request you to furnish this<br \/>\n       information specifically.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant Ms Kalaiselvi had in the meantime moved Appellate Authority<br \/>\nvide letter dated 30.6.2007. In its reply the Appellate Authority said that the<br \/>\napplication of appellant couldn&#8217;t be termed as seeking information as defined in<br \/>\nsec. 2(f) of RTI Act:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;The Central Information Commission, in its decision dated<br \/>\n       21.4.2006 on the appeal of Dr. D. V. Rao, has held that the RTI Act<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          3<\/span><br \/>\n       does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer<br \/>\n      queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his<br \/>\n      questions; and that the petitioner&#8217;s right extends only to seeking<br \/>\n      information as defined in Section 2 (f) either by pinpointing the file,<br \/>\n      document, paper or record etc., or by mentioning the type of<br \/>\n      information as may be available with the specified public authority.<br \/>\n      Further, the Central Information Commission, in its decision dated<br \/>\n      2.5.2006 on the appeal of Shri Mahavir Singhvi, had directed the<br \/>\n      appellant to ask for copies of documents containing the information<br \/>\n      and not t seek opinions through a questionnaire. Since the matters<br \/>\n      raised by you seek answers to the queries\/ opinion of this public<br \/>\n      authority on the issues raised therein, the request is beyond the<br \/>\n      scope of RTI Act, and the opinion sought\/ query raised cannot be<br \/>\n      answered.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The Appellate Authority then upheld the decision of CPIO referring to<br \/>\ndecisions of CIC in appeals of Dr. D.V.Rao and Shri Mahavir Singhvi.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;I find that in your application you have raised matters, which<br \/>\n      cannot be termed as seeking of information as defined in section 2\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly I uphold the decision of the<br \/>\n      CPIO that your request is beyond the scope of the RTI Act keeping<br \/>\n      in view decisions of the CIC on the appeals of Dr. D. V. Rao and<br \/>\n      Shri Mahavir Singhvi.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The appellant has now appealed to us under sec. 19 (3) of the RTI Act<br \/>\npleading as below &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;This information should be very well with them and they<br \/>\n      cannot evade their responsibility by stating that it is a<br \/>\n      question and they are not answerable as per RTI Act? CVC is<br \/>\n      answerable to any question and information pertaining to<br \/>\n      misuse of powers. If the above situation does not amount to<br \/>\n      misuse of powers, then they can say so.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      Under these circumstances, I request the CIC to direct the CVC<br \/>\n      to furnish the information sought out by me vide my letter<br \/>\n      dated 18.5.2007.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       The aforesaid was listed for hearing on Dec. 22, 2008 at 12.30 through<br \/>\nvideo conferencing. It was accordingly heard on 22.12.2008. Only respond4nt.<br \/>\nthe then CPIO Shri K. L. Ahuja is present. Although arrangements have been<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        4<\/span><br \/>\n made for video conferencing with Nagpur and notice sent to appellant dated<br \/>\n12.12.2008, appellant Ms. Kalaiselvi has opted not to be p[resent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n<p>      As can be seen from the applications of 8.5.07 and 18.5.07 quoted above,<br \/>\nthe first is with regard to procedures to be followed against senior officers of a<br \/>\nnationalized bank in which a reply has been sent to appellant by CPIO Shri K. L.<br \/>\nAhuja point wise within the mandated time limit.        The second application,<br \/>\nhowever, is simply a complaint of alleged misuse of official powers by posting an<br \/>\nofficer that appellant Ms. Kalaiselvi considers incompetent. This is well outside<br \/>\nthe jurisdiction of this Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The second appeal before us, moreover is only with regard to the request<br \/>\nfor information contained in the application of 18.5.07. Besides, she has dwelt at<br \/>\nconsiderable length in her second appeal upon the duty of the CVC to protect her<br \/>\nas a whistle blower.     These are issues well outside the jurisdiction of this<br \/>\nCommission that can only ensure that any information held by a public authority<br \/>\nis disclosed to applicant so long as it is not exempt from disclosure under any of<br \/>\nthe sub-sections to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The present appeal not being<br \/>\none in which there is any complaint of denial of any such information, it fails<br \/>\nunder the RTI Act 2005 and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Wajahat Habibullah)<br \/>\nChief Information Commissioner<br \/>\n22.12.2008<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        5<\/span><br \/>\n Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against<br \/>\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO<br \/>\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Pankaj Shreyaskar)<br \/>\nJoint Registrar<br \/>\n22.12.2008<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00993 dated 2.11.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 &#8211; Section 19 Appellant &#8211; Smt. K. Kalaiselvi, Nagpur Respondent &#8211; Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Facts : By an RTI application of 8.5.07 Ms. Kalaiselvi of Nagpur, Maharashtra [&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-41041","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 22 December, 2008 - 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\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-14T06:21:10+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\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-14T06:21:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"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\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-14T06:21:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 22 December, 2008 - 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\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-14T06:21:10+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\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-14T06:21:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008"},"wordCount":1645,"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\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008","name":"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-14T06:21:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-kalaiselvi-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. K. Kalaiselvi vs Central Vigilance Commission &#8230; on 22 December, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/41041","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=41041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}