STATE Vs. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was present for the hearing. The respondent was present and represented by Shri Roshan Lal (Dy. Commissioner) and Shri Harish Kumar (TA). The present appeal is being heard in continuation of the interim order dated 12 -2 -2014 and 17 -5 -2013. The Commission issued following directions vide order dated 12 -2 -2014 wherein the following directions were passed: 5. As the relevant documents have now been brought on record the appeal shall be listed for hearing again on 23 -4 -2014 at 12.45 hrs for proceeding with the appeal on merits.

(2.) THE present appeal is being heard in relation to the RTI application dated 11 -10 -2011 addressed to the CPIO and Asst. Commissioner, Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs and Excise wherein the appellant sought information on two points. The appellant sought to know the steps taken for verification of appellant's complaint regarding fraudulent LL.B. by Shri H.K. Sharan from Calcutta University and date of letter sent to DG Vigilance (East Zonal Unit) Kolkata, date of their response and report, etc.

(3.) THE facts as recorded in the interim order dated 17 -5 -2013 are as under: The CPIO vide his letter No. V -500/138/RTI/2011/4502, dated 9 -11 -2011 informed the appellant as follows: "(A) The complaint forwarded to EZU for report vide this office letter dated 19 -9 -2011 and (B) The Additional Director General, EZU, sent their 'investigation Report' vide their letter dated 3 -10 -2011. A U.O. note detailing the findings of investigation was sent to JS (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance on 4 -11 -2011. Since the matter has not attained the finality so exemption is claimed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. 3. Aggrieved by the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 28 -11 -2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. V. 500/RTI/Appeals/138/2011/6121, dated 28 -12 -2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the CPIO was not competent to disclose the investigation report submitted by his Superior Authority and sent to JS (Rev) for taking final decision as held by the Commission in the matter of Rajesh Mannalal Katariya v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune.......................The FAA held that the appellant's allegation that the CPIO has deliberately denied the information to cover up lapses and irregularities cannot be accepted because the CPIO is not the Competent Authority who will assess the correctness and acceptability of the said investigation report. Moreover the CPIO has provided the sufficient and desired information to the extent he might disclose under the RTI Act within the purview of official decorum. The CPIO has rightly claimed exemption for part of the information u/s. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.