LALIT VERMA Vs. RAMA SHANKAR SINHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant sought information on 5 points relating to file No. R -13105/12/2005 -Vigilance, including the noting portion and correspondence with CVC, CBI, DoPT and Law Ministry. Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

(2.) BOTH the parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application on 25.08.2014, seeking the above information. ACPIO/US vide letter dated 15.09.2014 transferred the RTI application u/s. 6(3) to Homeodesk, Dept. of AYUSH and Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH). He further informed the appellant that the certified copies of whole record of the Vigilance file cannot be provided u/s. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. PIO, CCH in his reply dated 01.10.2014 intimated the appellant that the recognition/permission to colleges as enlisted in his RTI application cannot be provided as the same are not available with the Council. CPIO/Director, Dept. of AYUSH in his reply dated 27.10.2014 stated that the information is nil. The FAA/Jt. Secy. in his order, observed as under: -

(3.) THE appellant stated that the charge -sheet issued against him was withdrawn on 14.08.2014; however, subsequently another charge -sheet was filed wherein certain correspondences have been referred to but the same has not been provided to him. He stated that his appointing authority is the Council and not the Govt. of India. He further stated that no reasons for invoking exemption u/s. 8(1)(h) has been given by the respondent authority while denying the information. The appellant apprised the Commission that the CBI had filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that nothing was found against him and in turn, recommended the Council to take action against him. He stated that he only wants the documents on the basis of which the charge -sheet was issued to him. The respondent from Vigilance Dept. stated that the matter was dealt in detail by the FAA. He stated that the copies of Enquiry Commission Report along with the report by the CBI of the preliminary enquiry and the CVC advice have already been provided to the appellant. The appellant stated that he has not received the CVC advice. The respondent stated that the same will be provided to him immediately.