Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
Facts:
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points seeking inspection of File No. C-14011/23/2017-Ad. V of the O/o the Chief Vigilance Officer, CBEC, D/o Revenue and its connected documents w.r.t. the prosecution sanction order no. 1/2017 dated 25.09.2017 signed by Shri Sukh Lal Meena, US to the Govt. of India, New Delhi, copies of the selected documents after the inspection.
2. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.10.2017 stated that as per the advice of the CVC, a prosecution sanction order issued against the Appellant vide order dated 25.09.2017 and sent to CBI for further necessary action at their end. However, it was intimated that most of the documents in the said prosecution file were pertaining to the CBI documents and as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, CBI had been exempted to provide the information. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.12.2017 while concurring with the response of the CPIO, denied disclosure of information u/s. 8 (1) (j) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, (Adv.) Appellant's representative, in person;
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Sundriyal, US (Adv.);
3. The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought by him in his own case was not furnished citing Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 without proper justification. In support of his contention, the Appellant referred to the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2017/131334 dated 15.11.2018 in the matter of Shri Manjit Singh Bali vs. CPIO, Dept. of Posts, etc. In its reply, the Respondent while reiterating his submissions submitted that his Appeal was considered by the FAA and rejected as the documents in the said prosecution file are pertaining to CBI documents and as per sub-section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, CBI has been exempted to provide information under the RTI Act, 2005. He also referred to the order issued by Ministry of Finance dated 18.12.2017 claiming exemption from disclosure of information as it could impede the prosecution of offenders under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which had no relation with any public activity. Furthermore, it was informed that the suspension of the Appellant was challenged by him in CAT which is sub-judice.
4. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
5. Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes........ "
6. In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in MANU/SC/0932/2011 : 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35. ..... "It is........