ORDER

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 08.11.2020 seeking information on the following nine points:

Shri Ravi K. Dobriyal, Under Secretary (Vigilance-I) & CPIO (Vigilance), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi vide letter dated 03.12.2020, informed to the Appellant as under:

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.01.2021, informed as under:

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent. He also requested the bench to award Compensation.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant stated that he has not received the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application from the Respondent. He further relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Surendra Santoshi vs. Central Vigilance Commission and Anr. bearing W.P. (C) No.467/2021.

The Respondent submitted that First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 18.01.2021 has directed the CPIO to provide action taken report to the Appellant qua point no. 1, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI Application which has been categorically complied with vide letter dated 12.02.2021. The contents of the same are as under:

He further added that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is related to a vigilance matter and dissemination of such sort of information would reveal the identity of those officers who had taken favorable and those who had taken unfavorable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes and accordingly the CPIO has rightly denied the exempted information to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act A written submission has been received by the Commission from the Appellant wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

Decision:

Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Surendra Santoshi vs. Central Vigilance Commission and Anr. bearing W.P. (C) No. 467/2021, relied upon by the Appellant are not applicable in the present matter in question as the facts of the averred case is distinguishable from the facts of the instant matter, hence, the Commission upholds the stand taken by the Respondent vide letter dated 03.12.2020, 18.01.2021 and 12.02.2021. The Commission further relies on one judgment dated 16.09.2009 passed by another bench of the Commission in the matter of K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, bearing case no. CIC/AT/A/2009/0617 wherein it was held that the file-notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentially held by the public authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act The operating portion of that order read as follows:-

"6. This is not the first case in which employees of a public authority have demanded disclosure of file-notings in matters of vigilance and disciplinary enquiries held against them. In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favorable and those who had taken unfavorable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file- notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that