| Friends, I present a decision of the Central Information Commission File. No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00610 Dated, 26/02/2007, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava vs Shri Vijay Sood, CPIO and others. In this case, the appellant had asked for certain documents related with a Departmental Proceeding against him. It was refused firstly by the PIO and then by the First Appellant. In the decision, along with some other facts, the Sri A N Tiwari, Information Commissioner arrived at certain conclusions-
1. A disciplinary proceeding against an employee of the public authority invariably assumes the characteristics of an investigation. The proceeding itself is governed by the rules specific to it. 2. In the sense that such proceedings are investigations, these do attract the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which bars disclosure of information pertaining to any current investigation. He concludes- "In consideration of the material before me, I have no hesitation in upholding the order of the AA." The same decision has been used time and again by the Information Commissions to deny grant of documents/information in cases of Departmental Enquiry. The crux of the decision is that it has equated Departmental Enquiry with criminal investigation. Thus while section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts 'information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders", this decision brings Departmental enquiry(DE) at the same footing as investigation and thus directly extends section 8I1)(h) to DE. I somehow feel that there is some legal error in this order because 1. Investigation, as defined in section 8(1)(h) possibly should not have been extended to mean DE as well, because they are completely different things legally. Other than being legally dissimilar, the two are quite different in nature as well. In investigation, secrecy of many acts is required particularly for apprehension of criminals, for search and seizure, for some clandestine operations etc. But in DE, there is no such hidden action. The basic requirement of a DE is that all the facts are presented before the accused employee who is given all the opportunity of defending his/her actions. In this way, DE is more akin to a judicial trial which is much more transparent and two-way instead of criminal investigations where secrecy might have its own role. 2. The entire purpose of the RTI Act is to bring transparency and accountability in the system. If an employee is being punished for some of his derelictions of duty, he should have all the rights to understand and know what exactly are his faults, on what basis are they bring said so and what do the evidences/documents proclaim. Any clandestine act in this process will be against the basic philosophy of such an Enquiry and governance.
What is ur reaction? Is there any other decision of CIC or any of the superior Courts contrary to the above view?
Amitabh,
President,
National RTI Forum,
lucknow
# 94155-34526
amitabhth@yahoo.com , amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com | 
No comments:
Post a Comment