JUDGMENT :

C.V. Bhadang, J.

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the common order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Goa State Information Commission (Commission, for short) in Appeal Nos.161/2018/CIC and 162/2018/CIC and the subsequent common order dated 07.01.2019 in Review Appeal No.01/2018/CIC and Review Appeal No.2/2018/CIC.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus.

The first respondent filed two applications before the Public Information Officer (PIO) under Section 6(1) and 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (Act, for short). The first of such applications was filed on 12.01.2018 and the second one on 18.01.2018. By these applications, the petitioner sought certified copies of the entire file (notings side and the correspondence side) of enquiry/investigation conducted by the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) and Technical Section of the Directorate of Vigilance against the petitioner. The information was in relation to a complaint dated 21.11.2011 filed by Mr. Jayesh Patel and Smt. Heena Patel. The said complaint was filed to the Superintendent of Police (ACB), Director of Vigilance alleging certain misconduct against the first respondent. Indisputably, the competent authority has conducted investigation and the first respondent has been proceeded against in two departmental enquiries. In both these departmental enquiries, chargesheets have been served on the respondent and the departmental enquiries are stated to be in progress. Admittedly, there are no criminal proceedings initiated against the first respondent.

4. The PIO refused to furnish the information on the ground that it is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, inasmuch as, in the opinion of the PIO, the information if supplied, would impede the process of investigation.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent challenged the same in two separate appeals before the Director of Vigilance which is the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority by an order dated 20.04.2018, concurred with the view taken by the PIO and dismissed the appeals. The first respondent carried the matter in two separate Second Appeals being Second Appeal Nos.161/2018 and 162/2018 before the Commission. The Commission by the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, has allowed the appeals and has directed the PIO to furnish the information as sought for. The petitioner sought review of the said order in two separate review applications (which are registered as 'Review Appeal' nos.1/2018 and 2/2018), which have been dismissed on 07.01.2019. Hence, this petition.

6. I have heard Mr. Faldessai, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the first respondent. Perused record.

7. Mr. Faldessai, the learned Additional Government Advocate has made the following submissions :

(i) That the term 'investigation' is not defined under the Act and would take into its ambit not only investigation by police in respect of criminal prosecution but would also include the investigation conducted by the competent authority preceding a departmental enquiry.

(ii) That, although in a matter of criminal prosecution the investigation would come to an end, when the chargesheet is filed, in a case where a person is proceeded departmentally, the investigation would continue till the completion/conclusion of the departmental enquiry.

(iii) That, although the chargesheets have been served in the two departmental enquiries on the first respondent, the departmental enquiry is still pending and thus the 'investigation' in this case can be said to be in progress.

(iv) The Commission was in error in holding that the investigation would come to an end when the chargesheet is served on the concerned employee.

(v) That the Commission was also in error in holding that the