- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
C. Nagarajan v. Cpio
Structured Summary of the Commission's Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Shri C. Nagarajan, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Post, Vigilance Section, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. He sought information relating to a charge sheet issued to him in connection with the purchase of UPS units during 2008–2010. His specific requests included: (i) copies of note sheets in Directorate file number 21-11/CVC/2015—Vig concerning the order to issue a charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to Shri C. Nagarajan; and (ii) copies of reports sent from the CPMG office, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai / PMG office, Southern Region, Tamilnadu Circle, Madurai in the vigilance case concerning purchase of 1 KVA and 3 KVA UPS during 2008–2010.
The appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (the Commission), contending that the orders of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were wrong, incorrect and illegal, and requesting the Commission to direct disclosure of the complete information.
At hearing, the appellant attended via video conferencing and the respondent, Shri Rajesh Gupta, ASP, Department of Post, New Delhi, was present in person.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the information sought by the appellant can be refused under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act on the ground that disclosure would impede an ongoing investigation/disciplinary proceeding.
- Whether the issuance of a chargesheet (in March 2018, as stated by the appellant) means that the investigation has been completed so as to negate the applicability of Section 8(1)(h).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant submitted that a chargesheet has already been issued to him in March 2018, and therefore the investigation is complete and information cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
- He stated he would be retiring in July 2019 and sought the information to defend himself before the disciplinary authority.
- He contended that the information sought is in official records and being public records should not be denied.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent submitted that although a chargesheet has been issued, the enquiry is not yet complete and disclosure at this stage would likely impede disciplinary proceedings.
- He argued the information sought is composite in nature because disciplinary action has been initiated against a group of 10–12 accused persons; disclosure to one co-accused could impede proceedings against others whose enquiries are still pending.
- The respondent therefore asserted that the information was rightly denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shankar Sharma v. DGIT [CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11] | The term "investigation" in Section 8(1)(h) should be interpreted broadly and liberally; it includes law enforcement actions, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries and adjudications and is not exhausted merely by submission of an investigating officer's report. | The Commission relied on this precedent to support a wide interpretation of "investigation" and to hold that issuance of a report or chargesheet does not necessarily mark the end of investigation for purposes of Section 8(1)(h). |
| K.S. Prasad v. SEBI, CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 | Where an enquiry report by a subordinate enquiry officer is submitted to a higher authority, the investigation cannot be regarded as concluded until a decision is taken by the competent authority. | Used to reinforce that an investigation/enquiry is only finally concluded with the competent authority's decision, supporting non-disclosure while disciplinary proceedings remain pending. |
| Govind Jha v. Army HQs [CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.06.2006] | Disciplinary enquiries assume the character of ongoing investigations; materials from such enquiries (e.g., file-notings) cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h). | The Commission applied this principle to treat the departmental enquiry as an ongoing investigation falling within the exemption in Section 8(1)(h). |
| Shri P.K. Saha v. Shri D.B. Janotkar, GM (A&EE) & PIO, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, CIC/AT/A/2007/00333 dated 17.08.2007 | When a specific law prescribes the scope of information to be disclosed in disciplinary proceedings, allowing broader access under the RTI Act would interfere with the investigation under that specific law. | The Commission relied on this to support the proposition that RTI cannot be used to obtain a wider range of materials than are permitted under disciplinary proceedings rules, as that would interfere with investigation. |
| V.K. Gulati v. DG Vig. Customs & Central Excise [CIC/AT/A/2007/01508; 17.06.2007] | Disclosure of information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings can compromise those proceedings; the central question is whether disclosure would impede the investigation. Premature disclosure (e.g., file notings) can disrupt the enquiry and affect confidentiality of sources. | The Commission used this authority to emphasize that disclosure could impede the enquiry and to justify being guarded in authorizing such disclosures while disciplinary proceedings remain pending. |
| Surinder Pal Singh v. UOI, W.P. (C) No. 16712/2006 (Delhi High Court, 10.11.2006) | Even after a chargesheet has been filed, the process of investigation/prosecution may not be complete; the respondents' apprehension that disclosure may impede prosecution can be justified while prosecution is pending. | The Commission relied on this High Court view to accept that filing a chargesheet does not automatically eliminate the risk that disclosure will impede ongoing proceedings, thereby supporting the exemption claim. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission began by hearing submissions of both parties and examining the record. It focused on whether Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act permitted refusal of the requested information on the ground that disclosure would impede an ongoing investigation or disciplinary enquiry.
The Commission analyzed established authorities and extracted three consistent legal propositions from the precedents cited in the opinion:
- The term "investigation" in Section 8(1)(h) is to be read broadly to include disciplinary proceedings and enquiries and is not limited to the technical criminal-law meaning of investigation.
- An investigation or enquiry cannot be deemed complete merely because an enquiry officer has submitted a report or a chargesheet has been issued; it is only finally concluded when the competent authority takes the decision based on that enquiry.
- Premature disclosure of materials (notings, file documents, witness sources) relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings may impede the enquiry, compromise confidentiality of sources, and interfere with the process established by the disciplinary rules; therefore such information can be legitimately withheld under Section 8(1)(h) if disclosure would impede the investigation.
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Commission accepted the respondent's contention that, despite issuance of a chargesheet, the disciplinary enquiry had not attained finality and disclosure at that stage could impede the disciplinary proceedings. The Commission found the respondent's apprehension reasonable in the circumstances and concluded there was no reason to interfere with the refusal under Section 8(1)(h).
The Commission also noted the procedural remedy available to the appellant: he is at liberty to obtain necessary information from the Disciplinary Authority at the appropriate stage, since as a legal norm information that the disciplinary authority must disclose to an accused will be accessible through the disciplinary process.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is DISPOSED OF in favour of maintaining the respondent's refusal to disclose the requested information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The denial of the specific information sought by the appellant under the RTI Act is upheld; the appellant may seek required materials through the disciplinary authority at the appropriate stage of the disciplinary proceedings.
- Procedure ordered: A copy of the Commission's decision is to be provided free of cost to the parties.
- Broader precedent: The opinion applies established Commission and High Court authorities interpreting Section 8(1)(h) and does not purport to create a new legal principle; it follows settled jurisprudence that disciplinary enquiries count as "investigations" for the purposes of Section 8(1)(h).
This summary is limited to and derived exclusively from the content of the provided opinion. No additional facts or inferences beyond that text have been added.
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Post, Vigilance Section, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, seeking information on two points pertaining to a charge sheet issued to him in connection with purchase of UPS during 2008-2010. The queries of the appellant included inter-alia: (i) copy of note sheets in the Directorate file number 21-11/CVC/2015—
Vig in which the Minister of Communication/Competent authority ordered to issue charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 to Shri C. Nagarajan, the then Manager, Mail Motor Services (MMS), Madurai, and (ii) copies of reports sent from CPMG office, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai/PMG office, Southern Region, Tamilnadu Circle, Madurai in the vigilance case in connection with purchase of 1 KVA, 3 KVA.UPS. during the period from 2008 to 2010.
2. The appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission on the grounds that orders of the CPIO and the FAA were wrong, incorrect and illegal. He also stated that the CPIO and the FAA have not judiciously approached the fact in issue and taken unanimous decision which is arbitrary and illegal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO/FAA to provide complete information as sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri C. Nagarjan attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Rajesh Gupta, ASP, Department of Post, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the investigation in the matter has been completed as a Chargesheet has been issued to him in the month of March 2018. Hence, the information sought for could not have been denied to him under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that he will be retiring in the month of July 2019 and hence he had sought the information in order to defend his case before the disciplinary authority. The appellant further submitted that information as sought by him is available in the official records and thus being public records cannot be denied to him by the respondent.
5. The respondent submitted that though the chargesheet has been issued, enquiry is yet to attain completion. Hence, disclosure of information at this stage is likely to impede the disciplinary proceedings. He further stated that the information sought by the appellant is of composite nature because disciplinary action has been initiated against a group of 10-12 accused persons. Since the Enquiry in the case is still pending against some of the accused and the Disciplinary proceedings are yet to be completed, hence divulging information to any one of the co-accused is likely to impede the disciplinary proceedings against the accused. Hence, the information sought for was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
DECISION:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the Commission in the case of Shankar Sharma v. DGIT [CIC/AT/A/2007/0007, 10 & 11] observed that :
“…..17.….. the term ‘investigation’ used in Section 8(1)(h), in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of ‘investigation’ one finds in Criminal Law. Here, investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement, disciplinary proceedings, enquiries, adjudications and so on. Logically, no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In that sense, an investigation can be an extended investigation The respondents are, therefore, right in holding that it would be a misnomer to hold that investigation in matters such as this, the moment the Investigating Officer submits his report to the competent authority spells the end of investigation.”
7. Furthermore, the Commission in the decision of K.S. Prasad v. SEBI, CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 had held as under:
“…as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. … which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority.”
Thus the above ratio clearly indicates that the term “investigation” used in the Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act requires a wider interpretation and shall be read as inclusive of an enquiry conducted during disciplinary proceedings.
8. It is further noted that this Commission had discussed a similar issue and adjudicated the query of similar nature in the case of Govind Jha v. Army HQs, [CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.06.2006], holding as hereunder:
“although the rules of disciplinary proceedings provide for disclosure of all documents and information which constitute the basis for the disciplinary action against an employee, yet such employees demand additional information pertaining to them through the RTI Act. These demands are mostly about disclosure of file-notings and other materials which otherwise would not be available to the employee under the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules. It has been the consistent position of the Commission that a disciplinary enquiry assumes the characteristics of an ongoing investigation and the material thereof cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.”
9. Likewise, in the case of Shri P.K. Saha v. Shri D.B. Janotkar, General Manager (A&EE) & PIO, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, CIC/AT/A/2007/00333 dated 17.08.2007, this Commission had held as under:
“When a specific law lays down the scope and the range of information to be disclosed to a person facing specified action at the hands of a public authority, it will be a sure interference with the process of investigation under that specific law if the affected person, or anybody else in his place, is allowed under the RTI Act to access a larger range of information than would be otherwise authorized.”
10. The Commission while deciding the case of V.K. Gulati v. DG Vig. Customs & Central Excise; [CIC/AT/A/2007/01508; Date of Decision: 17.06.2007], had taken the view that:
“5.….. disclosure of information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings, which are in the nature of ongoing investigations, will have the impact of compromising those proceedings and restricting the discretion of the Enquiry Officer to decide as to what documents the officer proceeded against will have access to. Since departmental enquiry is in the nature of ongoing investigation, it is covered by Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The only element which needs to be proved is whether the requested disclosure would impede the process of investigation. It has been the view of the Commission that such disclosures would impede the process of investigation in so far as these would affect the ability of the Enquiry Officer to conduct and regulate the extant departmental proceeding. It is also true that during any preliminary enquiry, a number of witnesses are examined and information is collected. Disclosure of this variety of information would undoubtedly bring out into the open its sources, which will be injurious to the interests of those who offer their assistance to the preliminary enquiry in the confidence that their identity would not be disclosed.
6. Commission has noted that a number of employees of the public authorities facing departmental/vigilance and other forms of proceedings from their respective managements have tended to use the RTI Act to access information - specially file notings in their own vigilance matters/disciplinary matters - in order to somehow lay hands on evidence that they could use in their favour. Commission has no problem with such an approach but since premature disclosure of information, specially file notings, prior to the final decision being made in a disciplinary action has the potential to disrupt the proceedings, Commission has been guarded in authorizing such disclosures. The RTI Act, apart from being a rights expanding instrument, it is also an instrument for improving governance. In that sense, it is always helpful to be guarded in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings, through which the managements enforce discipline within the organization and bring the guilty employees to book. Most disciplinary proceedings are under laws, which prescribe the processes of the proceeding such as the documents that can be disclosed to the officer proceeded against, the discretion of the enquiry officers to decide what documents to be disclosed to the accused officers in conformity with the norms of justice and fairplay and so on. Each time an RTI proceeding is started to force disclosure of documents, regardless of what the enquiry officers may have to say on this, potentially the process of the enquiry is impeded. Considering its large ramification, it is unsafe to authorize disclosure of such information under the RTI Act.”
11. This Commision also observes that the Delhi High Court's decision dated 10.11.2006, passed in W.P. (C) No. 16712/2006 in Surinder Pal Singh v. UOI, has held is as follows:
“9;….. Since the chargesheet has been filed, the process of investigation has been completed but the petitioner cannot contend that there is no apprehension with the respondent that the information sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender. Whether the respondents have apprehension or not is to be decided by the respondents in the present facts and circumstances. The apprehension of the respondents is not without any basis. In any case the prosecution of the offender is pending. Since prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been completed, it can not be inferred that divulgence of information will not impede the prosecution of the offender. The respondents, therefore, are justified in claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) from disclosure of information sought by the petitioner…”
12. In the light of the aforementioned settled position of law, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the contention of the respondent is found reasonable and there appears no reason to interfere with the same. The appellant is at liberty to obtain necessary information from the Disciplinary Authority at the appropriate stage, which as a matter of legal norm is anyway made available to the accused to prove his innocence.
13. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Alert