JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

Preface

1. The core question, which is raised in this writ petition, pertains to the power of Central Information Commission (CIC) to recommend disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

2. It is the contention of the petitioner/Union of India that no such power is vested in the CIC.

3. On the other hand, the respondent contends to the contrary.

4. The background in which aforestated question has arisen is, briefly, sketched out hereafter.

5. On 19.10.2013, the respondent had filed an RTI application seeking notings in respect of his earlier RTI applications. Furthermore, the name and designation of each of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIOs)/deemed CPIOs and other officers who had dealt with each of his RTI applications. In addition thereto inspection of all files, records and documents and copies of related notings was also sought.

5.1. This apart, the respondent also sought information with regard to the staff assigned and other information pertaining to the office of the Attorney General of India; information pertaining to opening of registers in the Administrative/Cash sections of the Departments of Legal Affairs; and information with regard to foreign and domestic tours of Ministers and officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above.

5.2. Since the concerned, CPIO came to the conclusion that it was not practicable to provide the wide array of information sought by the respondent, the request was denied vide order dated 21.11.2013. However, while doing so, the respondent was invited to carry out an inspection and to take copies of thereof after he had inspected the record.

5.3. This aspect of the matter is reflected in paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the CIC.

6. Be that as it may, the respondent being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal with the FAA, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.12.2013. Via the said order, FAA sustained the decision of the CPIO.

6.1. For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the FAA's order is extracted here:

"....6. I have assessed the facts and circumstances of the case and come to the conclusion that the CPIO, the respondent has acted as per provisions of Act. The respondent has submitted the original record before the First Appellate Authority it appears that appellant wants information regarding matter of record coming under Section 7(8) of RTI Act. For the safety and preservation of the record and monitoring the discipline in the system of administration it is necessary that both parties should consider about Section 7(9) of RTI Act which is the pulse of the Act. We should protect pulse for the survival of the Act. Hence statute does not permit to leave unsafe the record which is the base for providing for information.

Hence, in view of above the order dated 21.11.13 passed by the Respondent is upheld. No penal action is required for Respondent. Appellant may kindly note that if in future any information coming under Section 7(9) is sought by him, his request will be rejected, ab initio. Hence, the appeal is rejected.

7. The respondent, however, escalated the matter further and filed an appeal with the CIC.

7.1. Pertinently, the CIC, on its part, while passing the order whereby appeal was allowed, recommended disciplinary action against the FAA. In addition thereto, the CIC directed the petitioner to furnish certified copies of the information sought by the respondent in response to his RTI application dated 19.10.2013 within 21 days of the r