Information about one’s own vigilance case

The attested photostat copy of certain letter was denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. As the FAA upheld the reply given by the PIO, the applicant filed an appeal before the CIC. The PIO submitted that the letter sought for by the Applicant was the communication under which departmental action was sought against the Applicant and it contains the brief of the proposed disciplinary action, details of which were already revealed in the Chargesheet served to him. Upon a query from the CIC regarding the invocation of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the PIO was unable to tender any justification except for reiterating that the details contained in the averred letter were already revealed in the Chargesheet. Despite being afforded with adequate opportunity during the hearing to the PIO to justify the denial as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, no tenable explanation was forthcoming. The CIC noted that the information sought for by the Applicant relates to his own disciplinary case. The CIC rejected the denial of the information and directed the PIO to revisit the RTI Application and provide a reply to the Appellant incorporating the available information as sought for therein, free of cost. The CIC granted the limited liberty to the PIO to redact in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, the names and identifying particulars of third parties as well as the personal information, if any, related to third parties, both of which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Comment

The PIO must understand that he/she may be called upon to justify the invocation of the exemption for the denial of the information. To justify the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, PIO must be able explain what impediment will be caused to an investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offender by the disclosure of the averred information.

Citation:Shankar Ram Verma v. Department Of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2023/100589; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024