{"id":48289,"date":"2010-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-30T16:28:59","modified_gmt":"2018-04-30T10:58:59","slug":"shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                                    .....\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                         F.Nos.CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/000047<br \/>\n                                          Dated, the 23rd March, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p> Appellant           : Shri K.S. Jain<\/p>\n<p> Respondents : Directorate General of Vigilance (Customs &amp; Central<br \/>\n               Excise)<\/p>\n<p>      Matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on 08.03.2010.<br \/>\nAppellant was present in person at NIC VC facility at Bangalore, while<br \/>\nthe respondents \u2015 represented by the CPIO, Shri S. Chandrasekaran,<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner (Vigilance) \u2015 were present at NIC VC facility at<br \/>\nChennai. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    Through his RTI-application dated 18.07.2009, appellant made the<br \/>\nfollowing queries:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;Our Unit II, JDEL No.55\/1 Cuddalore Main Road, Kattukuppam,<br \/>\n       Manapet Post, Pondicherry 607 402 records were seized by<br \/>\n       preventive group of erstwhile Trichy Commissionerate and<br \/>\n       thereafter     these   were    forwarded    to    Pondicherry<br \/>\n       Commissionerate when Commissionerate was formed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (1)   We would like to have Xerox copies of internal<br \/>\n       correspondence, records and other note sheets generating for<br \/>\n       this case from the date the case came in the hands of vigilance,<br \/>\n       Central Excise, Chennai. This should include correspondence<br \/>\n       exchanged with Commissioner, Pondicherry, Board and also<br \/>\n       explanations received from the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>       (2)    Present status of the case.\n       (3)    Action taken report on the referred to CVO\/CBEC by CVC.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote><p>3.     In his reply dated 12.08.2009, citing orders of the CIC, the CPIO<br \/>\nstated that as regards appellant&#8217;s sub-queries at Sl.a, b and d (after<br \/>\nsplitting item 1 into 4 sub-items), information could not be disclosed as<br \/>\nvigilance investigation in the case was &#8220;yet to attain finality&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4.    As regards sub-item &#8216;c&#8217; (of item 1), appellant was informed that<br \/>\nno correspondence was made by that office with the Central Board of<br \/>\nExcise and Customs in relation to the ongoing investigation.<br \/>\nAT-23032010-03.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              Page 1 of 4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.    Regarding item at Sl.No.2, appellant was again informed that<br \/>\nsince the matter was under investigation, there was no finality about<br \/>\nthe role of any officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     As regards item at Sl.No.3, CPIO declined to disclose the<br \/>\ninformation on the ground that the investigation report furnished by<br \/>\nthis unit to the Director General of Vigilance, New Delhi was &#8220;pending<br \/>\nfinalization&#8221; and hence could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h).\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Appellate Authority (AA), in his order dated 06.10.2009, noted<br \/>\nthat CPIO had denied the requested information to the appellant under<br \/>\nSection 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, as the CPIO had not clearly<br \/>\nstated in his communication as to how the disclosure of the requested<br \/>\ninformation would &#8216;impede&#8217; any ongoing investigative process, AA,<br \/>\ntherefore, directed the CPIO to re-examine the matter for a decision at<br \/>\nhis level.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Following Appellate Authority&#8217;s order, CPIO re-examined the<br \/>\nmatter and through his communication dated 12.10.2009 informed<br \/>\nappellant that the type of information which he had requested, if<br \/>\ndisclosed, have had the potentiality to jeopardize the entire<br \/>\ninvestigation process by exposing the investigating officers to competing<br \/>\npressures and through intrusive action of those who were being<br \/>\ninvestigated. He also informed appellant that any disclosure of the<br \/>\ncontents of the criminal enquiry at this stage would not only be<br \/>\npremature, but could bring out into the open the sources from which<br \/>\ninformation was collected which would expose those sources to entirely<br \/>\navoidable risks. He held that disclosure of internal correspondences,<br \/>\nexplanations received from the accused persons, action taken reports,<br \/>\netc. relating to an ongoing investigation especially when this<br \/>\ninvestigation is of a vigilance nature, could irretrievably disturb the<br \/>\nproceedings. This, according to the CPIO, was enough reason to<br \/>\nconclude that the disclosure of the requested information would impede<br \/>\nthe ongoing investigation and hence would attract Section 8(1)(h) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    Appellant carried this matter in first-appeal before the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority (AA) once again and received the AA&#8217;s decision dated<br \/>\n19.11.2009. Appellate Authority took due cognizance of the appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nsubmission that no tax-evasion investigation against the unit mentioned<br \/>\nby him in his RTI-application was pending and hence it could not be<br \/>\nconstrued that an investigation in this matter was current. Against this,<br \/>\nAppellate Authority examined the decision of the CPIO that while no<br \/>\nAT-23032010-03.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n &#8216;revenue investigation&#8217; against the unit was pending, a &#8216;vigilance<br \/>\ninvestigation&#8217; on the basis of certain complaints against officers<br \/>\ninvolved was certainly current \u2015 &#8220;the vigilance investigation is yet to<br \/>\nattain finality&#8221;. On the basis of his examination of the respective<br \/>\nsubmissions, Appellate Authority concluded that disclosure of the<br \/>\nrequested information came under the bar of Section 8(1)(h) as it had<br \/>\nhad the potentiality to impede the ongoing vigilance investigation. He<br \/>\ncited several decisions of the CIC in support of his conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In his second-appeal, appellant stated that as regards his unit-II,<br \/>\nno case was pending anywhere. He, therefore, demanded that the<br \/>\ninformation ought to be disclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>11. I have noted the respective submissions of both sides. It is<br \/>\nadmitted by the respondents that no &#8216;revenue investigation&#8217; was<br \/>\npending against the above-mentioned Unit-II of the appellant, but a<br \/>\nrelated &#8216;vigilance investigation&#8217; was definitely current. Appellant, in<br \/>\nhis RTI-application, has himself mentioned that he wanted to have all<br \/>\nrecords relating to this case &#8220;from the date the case came in the hands<br \/>\nof Vigilance, Central Excise Chennai&#8221;. He, therefore, also wanted the<br \/>\n&#8220;explanations received from the accused&#8221;. It is, thus, obvious that<br \/>\nalthough technically speaking, the &#8216;revenue investigation&#8217; against the<br \/>\nunit has been closed, the &#8216;vigilance enquiries&#8217; against the officers in the<br \/>\nsame matter are still going on. It would be well-nigh impossible to<br \/>\nseparate the two.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. From what the appellant submitted \u2015 although he kept repeating<br \/>\nthat there was no pending investigation against his Unit \u2015 it was quite<br \/>\nclear that he was wanting to seek-out the records of vigilance enquiry<br \/>\nagainst the officers. These two investigations \u2015 one, now closed,<br \/>\nagainst Unit-II of appellant; and the other, now current, against officers<br \/>\n\u2015 were distinct and separate.\n<\/p>\n<p>13. CPIO and the Appellate Authority have rightly pointed out that no<br \/>\ndisclosure of information could be authorized when a vigilance<br \/>\ninvestigation against employees of the public authority was current<br \/>\nbecause it was sure to impede the current process by exposing the<br \/>\nsources of information, the methodology of investigation, the identities<br \/>\nof the investigating officers, among others, and also by exposing the<br \/>\nofficers to external pressures and intrusive action by those investigated.<br \/>\nDelhi High Court, in its decision dated 10.11.2006 in S.P. Singh Vs. UOI<br \/>\nAT-23032010-03.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n &amp; Ors; W.P. (C) No.16712\/2006, held that in matters of prosecution,<br \/>\nany disclosure outside the extant process would amount to impeding the<br \/>\nprocess. What applies to prosecution, equally applies to investigation,<br \/>\nas these two processes are governed by common exemption condition<br \/>\nunder Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Disclosure of information about<br \/>\ninvestigations, especially vigilance investigations, under the RTI Act is<br \/>\nsure to impede that process.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. It also needs to be stated that vigilance-related investigations are<br \/>\ngenerally conducted in confidentiality and the files related thereto are<br \/>\ntreated as impliedly confidential under Section 124 of the Indian<br \/>\nEvidence Act by the public authority. This brings the matter also within<br \/>\nthe scope of Section 11(1) of RTI Act due to the fact that the public<br \/>\nauthority itself becomes a third-party (as defined under Section 2(n))<br \/>\nwith reference to confidential information it holds. No disclosure of<br \/>\nsuch information can be authorized unless it is proved that public<br \/>\ninterest in its disclosure outstrips the protected interest. No public<br \/>\ninterest commends disclosure of this information as now requested.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. In view of the above, I uphold the decision of the Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority in denying this information to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.    Matter disposed of with these directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.    Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         ( A.N. TIWARI )<br \/>\n                                             INFORMATION COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n<p>AT-23032010-03.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &#8230;.. F.Nos.CIC\/AT\/A\/2010\/000047 Dated, the 23rd March, 2010. Appellant : Shri K.S. Jain Respondents : Directorate General of Vigilance (Customs &amp; Central Excise) Matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on 08.03.2010. Appellant was present in person at [&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-48289","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>Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance ... on 23 March, 2010 - 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\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance ... on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-30T10:58:59+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=\"6 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-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T10:58:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1238,\"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-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance ... on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T10:58:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance ... on 23 March, 2010 - 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\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance ... on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-30T10:58:59+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T10:58:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010"},"wordCount":1238,"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-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010","name":"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance ... on 23 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T10:58:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-k-s-jain-vs-directorate-general-of-vigilance-on-23-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri K.S. Jain vs Directorate General Of Vigilance &#8230; on 23 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/48289","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=48289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}