[UPSC vs. R.K. Jain (2012) (282) ELT 161 Del]
The respondent by an application filed u/s. 6 of the Act, sought the Information from the petitioner (UPSC) namely, inspection of the records, documents, note sheets, reports, office memorandum, part files and files relating to the proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against Shri G.S. Narang, IRS, Central Excise and Customs Officer of 1974 Batch and also inspection of records, files, etc., relating to the decision of the UPSC thereof.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the petitioner, however, declined to provide the same on the ground that the information sought pertained to the disciplinary case of Shri G. S. Narang, which was of personal nature, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. It further stated that the disclosure of the same may infringe upon the privacy of the individual and that it may not be in the larger interest. The petitioner, therefore, claimed exemption from disclosing the information u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal on the same ground that the information sought was exempted from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act. The Respondent preferred an appeal before the CIC. The CIC set aside the decision of the First Appellate Authority and held that opinions/advices tendered/given by the officers (public officials) can be sought for under the Act, provided the same have not been tendered in confidence/secrecy and in trust to the authority concerned, i.e. to say, in a fiduciary relationship. Since the petitioner has not been able to set up the same in the present case, as aforesaid, the claim of exemption u/s. 8(1) (e) stands rejected.
The court observed that a bare perusal of section 8(1)(g) of the Act, makes it clear that the exemption would come into operation only if the disclosure of information would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or would identify the source of the information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The opinion/advice, which constitutes the information in the present case, cannot be said to have been given “in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes”, as aforesaid. Therefore, that part of the clause would be inapplicable and irrelevant in the present case. So far as the petitioner’s submission, that the disclosure of Information would endanger the life and safety of the officers who tendered their opinion/advices, is concerned, as aforesaid, in the facts of the present case, may be addressed – by resorting to section 10 of the Act. The exemption u/s. 8(1)(g) of the Act, therefore, as claimed by the Petitioner, would be no ground for disallowing the disclosure of the information (sought by the Respondent) in the facts of the present case.
The other information sought related to the note sheets and final opinion rendered by the UPSC regarding imposition of penalty/punishment on the charged offer. Such information, as is evident from a plain reading, relates to noting and opinion post investigation i.e., after the investigation is complete. Disclosure of such information cannot, by any means whatsoever be held to “impede the process of investigation” which could be raised only when an investigation is ongoing. As such, the exemption u/s. 8(1)(h) of the Act also cannot be raised by the petitioner in the present case.
