Controller General of Defence Accounts
Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-10
No. AN/XIII/13006/Vol.XXI
Dated:- 29.05.2013
To
All Principal Controllers/PCA (FYs)
All Controllers/CFAs
Sub:- Delhi High Court’s decision in – LPA NO.618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 in the matter of disclosure of information under the provisions of RTI Act, relating to disciplinary matters.
A copy of CVC letter No. CVC/RTITMisc./10/002 dated 04.04 2013 on the above subject is forwarded herewith for information, guidance and necessary action please.
2. The CPIOs/Appellate Authorities of the organization may be requested to take due cognizance of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Judgement, reproduced at para 2 of the above cited letter while deciding the RTI Applications and Appeals relating to disclosure of documents/information pertaining to vigilance /disciplinary proceedings (including orders of the disciplinary authority).
3. Please ack. receipt.
sd/-
(A R Sule)
CVO
CVC’s Letter No. CVC/RTI/Misc/10/2002 dated 04.04.2013
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
Satarkta Bhawan, G.P.O.
Block A, INA, New Delhi 110023
No.CVC/RTI/Misc/10/002
Dated 04.04.2013
Sub: Delhi High Court’s decision in LPA No. 618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 in the matter of disclosure of information under the provisions of RTI Act, relating to disciplinary matters.
The attention of the CVOs concerned is drawn to the Judgement/Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 06.11.2012 in LPA. No. 618/2012 in case of ‘Union Public Service Commission Vs R. K. Jain, in which the issue of disclosure of information/documents under the provisions of RTI Act pertaining to vigilance/disciplinary proceedings has been considered by the Hon’ble Court.
The Hon’ble Court in its Judgement, had observed that:
“The counsel for the respondent has argued that in the case before the Supreme Court the CIC itself had denied the information while in the present case CIC itself has allowed the information. To our mind the same is irrelevant. The counsel for the respondent has next sought to take us through the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. However, in the light of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court and which if applicable to the facts of the present case is binding on this Bench, we are not required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. Faced therewith the counsel for the respondent has lastly contended that the appellant UPSC in the present case is not the employer of the officer Shri G.S. Narang, information pertaining to whom was sought and the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable to the employer only. We however fail to see the difference. The ratio of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual. Though the appellant UPSC is not the employer of Shri G. S. Narang, information pertaining to whom is sought by the respondent, but his employer had sought the advice/opinion/recommendation of the appellant UPSC in the matter of disciplinary proceedings against the said Shri G.S. Narang and we fail to see as to how it makes difference whether the information relating to disciplinary proceedings is sought from the employer or from the consultant of the employer. What is exempt in the hands of the employer would certainly he exempt in the hands of consultant of the employer also. The advice given by the appellant UPSC would necessarily pertain to the disciplinary action against Shri G.S. Narang. Section 8(1)(j) exempts from disclosure personal information, irrespective of with whom it is possessed and from whom disclosure thereof is sought”.
“The respondent at no stage set-up a case of the said personal information being required in public interest. In fact when we asked the cowisel for the respondent as to what was the public interest in which the said personal information was sought, he replied by stating that an information seeker under the Act is not required to state the reasons for seeking the information. That being the position, the need for any discussion further on the said aspect does not arise”.
“We therefore, following the dicta in Girish Rarnchandra Deshpande, set aside the judgement dated 13th July, 2012 of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant UPSC, consequently setting aside the order dated 12th January, 2011 of the CIC”.
3. The CVOs may bring the above quoted Judgement/Order of the Han’ble High Court of Delhi to the notice of the all CPIOs/Appellate Authorities of their respective organization, who may take due cognizance of the same, while deciding the RTI Applications and Appeals relating to disclosure of documents/information pertaining to vigilance/disciplinary proceedings (including Orders of the Disciplinary Authority).
4, The complete decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the aforementioned case is available on its website, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in downloadable form under the head “JUDGEMENTS”.
sd/-
[Rajiv Verma]
Under Secretary & ‘Nodal’ CPIO
Source: www.cgda.nic.in
[http://cgda.nic.in/adm/rtiDiscp.pdf]
Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.
Subscribe to Central Government Employee News & Tools by Email [Click Here]
Follow us: Twitter [click here] | Facebook [click here] | Google+ [click here]
Admin
COMMENTS