CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority

8/4/2019 CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority

1/4

1

Central Information CommissionRoom No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama

Place, New Delhi 110066

Telefax:011 26180532 & 011 26107254 website cic.gov.in

Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000220

Appellant : Sh. V.K. Sharma,

Chandigarh

Public Authority : Home Deptt. (III),

Chandigarh.

(Sh. Amrit Pal Sharma, CPIO

and Sh.

Sh.Amitabawa)

Date of Hearing : 12 May 2011

Date of Decision : 12 May 2011

Facts:

1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma submitted RTI application

dated 9.7.2010 before the CPIO, Supdt. Home III,

Chandigarh Administration seeking time etc.

pertaining to chargesheets issued to him on5.10.2004, 9.3.2005 and 31.6.2007 alongwith decision

taken on his application dated 5.5.2010 enclosed

wherewith as Annexure A.

2. Vide order dated 10.8.2010, the CPIO denied

disclosure of information as requested under Points

No. 1, 2 and 4 of the RTI application by citing the

provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI

Act, 2005. The appellant preferred appeal dated

6.9.2010 before the First Appellate Authority which

was decided vide FAA order dated 5.10.2010 in which

it was recorded that in the matter pertaining to

disciplinary inquiry against the appellant the

penalty of stoppage of two increments had been

imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, on

account of the fact that the appellant had filed

appeal against the orders of the disciplinary

authority, it was held that the proceedings in the

case were still not complete and denial of



2/4

2

information was upheld under the provisions of

Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.

3. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the

above orders, the appellant challenged them before

the Commission by preferring second appeal. Thematter was heard today. Both parties were present as

above and presented arguments. The appellant stated

with great thrust that penalty had already been

awarded and the disciplinary proceedings were

complete and over. However, he had sought

information from the respondent so as to prepare a

well argued appeal against the penalty imposed upon

him which opportunity he had been denied on account

of refusal of the information sought by him. He

further stated that information provided under Point

No. 3 was incomplete and vague. The respondent

confirmed that chargesheet dated 5.10.2004 was

disposed of and final orders was passed on 4.5.2010

and chargesheet dated 9.3.2005 was also put to final

closure through order dated 15.7.2010. The appellant

stated that denial of information to him by the

respondent was willful and showed mala fide

intention. The respondent confirmed that the

disciplinary proceedings were now over and they were willing to provide full and complete information as

sought by the appellant in his RTI application.

Decision Notice

4. After hearing both parties and on persuing the

facts on record, the Commission notes that even

though final orders had been passed and penalty

awarded to the appellant well before the orders ofthe CPIO dated 10.8.2010 and the First Appellate

Authority, dated 5.10.2010, they continued to deny

disclosure of information to the appellant by citing

Section 8(1)(h) of the Act which allows exemption

from disclosure of information which would impede

the process of investigation or apprehension or

prosecution of offenders

5. Therefore, this denial of disclosure is

unjustified and does not stand scrutiny of law.



3/4

3

Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide

full and complete point wise information to the

appellant within one week of receipt of the order.

The Commission observes that in response to Point No.

3 of the RTI application, CPIO has stated that theapplication of the appellant dated 5.5.2010 has been

examined and the same has been filed by the competent

authority. The Commission is in agreement with the

appellant that this amounts to denial of information

and respondent is directed to provide full notings

pertaining to the disposal of this letter up to the

point of final decision. The information, as above,

be furnished within one week of the receipt of the

orders.

6. Through this order, the Commission issues Notice

to the then CPIO to show cause why penalty should not

be imposed upon him for having wrongly denied the

information to the appellant. Opportunity of personal

hearing is provided to him and he is directed to appear

before Commission on 24.6.2011 at 12.30 PM at UT Guest

House, Sector 6, Chandigarh.

7. The Commission observes that the then first

Appellate Authority Smt. Prerna Puri adjudicated upon

the matter without application of mind and clearly

showing bias against disclosure of information even

though the enquiry was complete and over and final

orders had already been passed by the competent

authority thereby denying the appellant a fair

opportunity of making a well argued appeal against

the punishment awarded to him to the next higher

authority. Under the powers of the Commission under

Section 20(2), the Commission recommends controlling

authority to issue memo of stricture to her forlapse in discharging his duties as mandated under the

RTI Act.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

Information Commissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar



4/4

4

Copy to:

1. Shri Vinod KumarSharma

House No.2254, Sector 19 C,

Chandigarh

2. The CPIO

The Supdt. Home 111,

Chandigarh Administration Sectt.

Sector 19 C, UT Chandigarh

3. The Appellate Authority

The Supdt. Home 111,

Chandigarh Administration Sectt.

Sector 19 C, UT Chandigarh

4. Shri Bhupiner Singh

Joint Transport Commissioner

Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh

5. The Commissioner Transport

Govt. of Haryana, Chandigarh

(The officers mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4 & 5

orders to be served through UT Secretariat,

Chandigarh)


CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority

Documents

Transcript of CIC Recommending Stricture on Appellate Authority