Decision No. CIC/BS/A/2013/003036/6748 dated 12-01

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/003035+003036/6748
12 January 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant
:
Mr. Fateh Singh
V/46, Telecom Colony, BSNL
Bajaj Nagar,
Jaipur–302015,
Rajasthan
Respondent
:
CPIO & Dy. Secretary (VB &VP)
Department of Telecommunications
Vigilance – I Section,
Room no. 903, Sanchar Bhawan,
20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on
PIO replied on
First appeal filed on
First Appellate Authority order
Second Appeal received on
:
:
:
:
:
06/05/2013
28/05/2013
24/06/2013
17/07/2013
18/09/2013 & 31/07/2013
Information sought:File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/003036
The applicant has sought the following information:
1. Photocopy of all correspondence made by the CBI Jaipur, Delhi to DoT and vice versa
w.e.f. 17/07/2010 to till date the information is provided in respect of CBI case, Jaipur, FIR
RC/JAI/2010/18A/dated 17/07/2010 against Sh. Fateh Singh, the then DGM, Project,
BSNL, Jaipur.
2. Photocopy of all correspondence made by the DoT to CVC New Delhi and vice versa w.e.f.
17/07/2010 to till date the information is provided in respect of CBI case, Jaipur, FIR
RC/JAI/2010/18A/dated 17/07/2010 against SH. Fateh singh, the then DGM, Project,
BSNL, Jaipur.
3. Photocopy of all note sheets of all files from which disagreement note from DoT to
CVC/CVC advice and vice versa were processed against CBI report/police report w.e.f.
17/07/2010 to till date the information is provided in respect of CBI case, Jaipur, FIR
RC/JAI/2010/18A/dated 17/07/2010 against Sh. Fateh Singh, the then DGM, project,
BSNL, Jaipur.
4. Photocopy of all correspondence made by the DoT to DoPT New Delhi and vice versa
w.e.f. 17/07/2010 to till date the information is provided in respect of CBI case, jaipur, FIR
RC/JAI/2010/18A/dated 17/07/2010 against Sh. Fateh Singh, the then DGM, Project,
BSNL, Jaipur.
5. Photocopy of all note sheets of all files from which disagreement note from DoT to
DoPT/DoPT advice and vice versa were processed against CBI/police report w.e.f.
Page 1 of 4
17/07/2010 to till date the information is provided in respect of CBI case, Jaipur, FIR
RC/JAI/2010/18A/dated 17/07/2010 against Sh. Fateh Singh, the then DGM, Project,
BSNL, Jaipur.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/003036
1. Photocopy of sanction of prosecution permission against Sh. Fateh Singh, the then DGM,
Project, BSNL, Jaipur in respect of CBI case, Jaipur, FIR RC/JAI/2010/18A/dated
17/07/2010.
2. Date of sanction prosecution permission by the disciplinary authority.
3. Date of dispatched of sanction prosecution permission to CBI or date & time, name and
designation of the CBI official along with acknowledgement who collected the prosecution
permission letter if collected personally.
4. Photocopy of all note sheets of the concerned files from which sanction of prosecution
permission was processed.
5. Photocopy of CVC and DoPT advice against DoT disagreement notes in respect of
prosecution against Sh. Fateh Singh CBI report.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 21/11/2014:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Fateh Singh
Respondent: Mr. Prabhu Pradutt CPIO & Ms. Manjul Soni
The CPIO stated that the information sought in both the appeals is inter-related and hence
they may be disposed of by common order. He further stated that the CBI has intimated them that
the appellant had moved the Hon’ble High Court seeking the concerned file of disciplinary
authority, CVC & DoPT by which his prosecution permission was granted; however, the Hon’ble
High Court has rejected the request. The CBI has further contended that the documents sought by
the appellant under RTI appear to be the same and are also exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1)(g) & (h) of the RTI Act. He pleaded that copies of correspondence/file notings relating
to CBI/CVC/DoPT is third party information and they will carry out the process as outlined under
Section 11 of the RTI Act and thereafter give their detailed submissions in the matter for which
some time should be allowed.
Interim Decision notice dated 21/11/2014:
As requested by the CPIO it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions
from him demonstrating in detail his stand on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on
record. Accordingly, the CPIO should furnish his submissions to the Commission (endorsing a
copy to appellant) by 31/12/2014. The CPIO should send his submissions to the Commission by
post and also by e-mail at [email protected].
The hearing is adjourned for 12/01/2015 at 03.30 PM.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 12/01/2015:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Fateh Singh
Respondent: Mr. Anupam Anish Chauhan CPIO’s representative, Ms. Manjul Soni & Ms. Amar
Jyoti Sharma
Page 2 of 4
The appellant stated that he needs copies of the correspondence exchanged with the CBI, DoPT
and the CVC regarding sanction of his prosecution. He further stated that he needs the notings
contained in the file in which his prosecution was processed. The CPIO’s representative stated
that they had contacted the CBI who advised that the CBI is an exempt organization and any
correspondence made by the CBI and vice-versa and other reports/letters should not be
disclosed. They have further stated that the prosecution of the appellant is pending before the trial
court and if the required information is provided the prosecution case would be impeded. She
further stated that CBI has also informed that the appellant had made a petition dated 06/05/2013
to the trial court and in para 6 of the said petition he has requested the court “to order to call the
concerned files of the disciplinary authority, CVC and DoPT by which prosecution permission was
dealt with to verify the genuineness of application of mind of the disciplinary authority while issuing
prosecution sanction permission.” The trial court, however, vide its order dated 19/07/2013
dismissed the said petition and the said order has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of
Rajasthan vide order dated 19/08/2014.
The appellant stated that in para 6 of his petition dated 06/05/2013 he had not demanded
any document from the court and hence the respondent’s contention is without merit. Even the
said order of the trial court dated 19/07/2013 was defective and he had submitted another
application dated 24/08/2014 to the court which had modified its earlier order and has allowed the
documents. The CPIO’s representative contested the appellant’s contention stating that the issue
of grant of sanction of prosecution (para 6 of his earlier petition) was not contested in the
subsequent application dated 24/08/2014 and the issue before the trial court was limited to para 4
of his earlier petition dated 06/05/2013 and the order was accordingly passed in his favour.
The appellant emphatically pleaded that the trial court neither commented anything on para
6 of his petition dated 06/05/2013 nor has given any direction to bar the information contained in
the files relating to his prosecution. The CPIO’s representative stated that the trial court in its order
dated 19/07/2013 has categorically stated that the court does not find it appropriate to accept the
petition at this stage and had dismissed the said petition.
The CPIO’s representative agreed to provide copies of the letters received from the CVC
and the DoPT and the date of sanction of prosecution and particulars of its dispatch.
Decision Notice:
The submissions of both the parties have been heard at length. In the matter at hand the
appellant has sought copies of correspondence exchanged with the CBI and the notings
contained in the file in which sanction of his prosecution was processed.
It is an admitted fact that criminal case in this matter is currently going on before the CBI
Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a similar matter in S.P. Singh’s case has held as follows:
(WP no. 16712/2006 dated 10/11/2006)
“The Central Information Commission and the Appellate Authority and CPIO have
held that the prosecution of the offender is pending before the Special Judge. If the
prosecution of the offender is pending and not yet complete, the information which is
sought by the petitioner may impede the prosecution of the offender, cannot be faulted.
The emphatic argument by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of
investigation is already over as the chargesheet has already been filed by the Central
Bureau of Investigation, is not correct. Exemption from disclosure of information can be
claimed for any information which may impede the process of investigation or
Page 3 of 4
apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Since the charge sheet 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 appellant 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 cannot 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. The argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the process of investigation has been
completed as chargesheet has already been filed cannot be accepted and is contrary to all
the circumstances under which exemption can be claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of Right to
Information Act, 2005.”
The above order was challenged before a Division Bench which vide its order dated
23/03/2007 [LPA no.213/2007 – S P Singh vs. UOI and others] has upheld the said decision
observing as under:“6.
The appellant in our cosidered opinion has sufficient scope and option
to raise the issue of sanction in the trial court. This cannot be a ground to direct
furnishing of information contrary to Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act.
The authorities under the aforesaid Act cannot examine and hold that sanction is valid or
bad in law”
The facts and circumstances of S P Singh’s case discussed above were similar to the
matter at hand. Hence the present request of the appellant is barred by the exemption under
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta)
Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer
Page 4 of 4

Download Report