Departmental/Vigilance/Court cases against their employees

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/124304 Date of Hearing : 10.08.2017 Date of Decision : 01.09.2017 Appellant/Complainant : S.K.Rai Respondent : CPIO, AIIMS, Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal: RTI application filed on : 25.11.2016 PIO replied on : 26.12.2016 First Appeal filed on : 12.01.2017 First Appellate Order on : 14.02.2017 2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 13.04.2017 Information sought and background of the case: Vide RTI application dated 25.11.2016, the appellant sought details of vigilance cases instituted in AIIMS Delhi from January, 2010 to August, 2016 alongwith names, designation of personnel against whom the vigilance cases were pending and related issues under 11 points. CPIO vide letter dated 26.12.2016 furnished information as available on record. The PIO, however, declined to disclose the names and designation etc. u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal on 12.01.2017. The FAA upheld the decision of CPIO. The FAA further observed as under: The Central Information Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande vs. CIC and others (SLP(c) No.27734.2012) in which it was held as under: The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’’ disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual. Feeling aggrieved with the FAO, the appellant approached the Commission. Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant sates that while he sought to know the names of officials facing departmental action, the PIO did not furnish the same citing Section 8(1)(j). He states to have received rest of the information. On the other hand, the PIO reiterates his stand in denying the names of the officials facing departmental action and relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commr. and Ors.: MANU/SC/0816/2012 to augment his contention. A reference is also made to the decision of Delhi High Court in Union Public Service Commission Vs. R.K. Jain: MANU/DE/5415/2012 in the same context. However, the Appellant states that larger public interest outweighs any requirement of extending privacy to the charged officials. Upon a query from Commission if the presumption of innocence of a charge sheeted employee would not be jeopardized if his identity is disclosed before any imputation is substantially proved against him/ her; the Appellant has no plausible & cogent answer to offer. Decision: After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission find the present issue to be no longer res integra. In the considered opinion of the Commission, the citizenry has a right to know about the human capital engaged in Public offices and the same shall be in best interest of transparency & administrative reform. In a recent adjudication by this bench in Ashok Kumar Reddy vs. PIO, Chief Office of Chief Secretary, GNCTD: MANU/CI/0425/2017. After analyzing rival contentions, the Commission opined as: 7. The Commission has no hesitation to hold that dynamic numeric data relating to departmental & vigilance proceedings falls within the purview of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 and thus, the same must be put in public domain, proactively. Disclosure of such data shall serve as a tool in better governance and thus undoubtedly serves larger public interest. Accordingly, the Commission in exercise of powers conferred under sub-clauses (iii) & (iv) of Section 19(8)(a) directs all Ministries of the Union of India and departments & instrumentalities subordinates thereto; to publish the numerical details of ongoing departmental, vigilance and well as police prosecution cases. In no circumstances, names of the employees facing charges shall be disclosed & the year & department wise numeric data shall be disclosed. The Commission cannot postulate all the modalities of execution of the present direction, however prescribes the minima and leaving the modalities of compliance to the public authorities. The public authorities working under the aegis of Union Government shall make public: "(a). Year wise Numeric data of pending as well as disposed Departmental/Vigilance/Court cases against their employees initiated at instance of the employer; (b). Rank/Post held by the charge sheeted employee; without disclosure of identity of the individual. (c). Details of outcome in terms of finding i.e. exoneration or found guilty." Accordingly, the PIO is directed to furnish precise numeric data on point no, 1 of the RTI Application wherein the Appellant is seeking the details of all vigilance cases instituted from January 2006 to 31.08.2016. Nothing further, except the numeric data shall be furnished to the Appellant. Revised reply shall be furnished to the Appellant within 2 weeks of receipt. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (R.P.Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:- S K RAI S/o. late Shri Bateshwar Rai, House No. - 689/7A, Mehrauli, Mandi Pahari, New Delhi-110047. Delhi,New Delhi,NA Central Public Information Officer under RTI, Administrative Officer & CPIO, (Vigilance Section), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029. First Appellate Authority under RTI Chief Administrative Officer & FAA, (Vigilance Section), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029.