2010 (3) TMI 951 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Disclosure of information related to ongoing vigilance enquiry.
2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. Disclosure of information related to a third-party in a vigilance enquiry.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disclosure of information related to ongoing vigilance enquiry
The appellant sought information regarding a vigilance enquiry against a third-party and questioned the continuation of the enquiry against him while it was dropped for the other party. The respondents argued that disclosure could impede the ongoing enquiry against the appellant. However, the Commission held that once a proceeding is concluded, the information no longer attracts Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Referring to previous decisions, the Commission directed the disclosure of the requested information related to the vigilance enquiry against the third-party.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act
The Commission analyzed the respondents' contention that Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act should prevent the disclosure of information related to the ongoing enquiry against the appellant. However, considering the conclusion of the enquiry against the third-party, the Commission ruled that the information should be disclosed as it no longer impedes the investigation process.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
The Commission examined the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act concerning the disclosure of information related to a third-party in a vigilance enquiry. Two opposing viewpoints were presented regarding whether such information could be considered personal to the employee under investigation. After thorough analysis, the Commission concluded that the investigation against a third-party employee cannot be categorized as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Issue 4: Disclosure of information related to a third-party in a vigilance enquiry
The Commission determined that an RTI applicant can seek information not only regarding themselves but also about a third-party in a similar matter. The Commission emphasized that the information requested should not be denied solely on the grounds of being personal to an employee. Therefore, the Commission directed the disclosure of the requested information related to the third-party in the vigilance enquiry.

In conclusion, the Commission ordered the disclosure of the requested information related to the ongoing vigilance enquiry against a third-party within two weeks, considering the provisions of the RTI Act and the specific circumstances of the case.