O R D E R

1. The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) O/o. The Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant seeking information on thirteen points, including inter-alia as under:-

“Kindly refer to order F. No. II (03)01-Vig/2015/IND/821 dated 23.08.2019, issued by the Commissioner, CGST &Central Excise Hqs, for premature retirement of the appellant.

i) Certified copies of Annual confidential reports/ APAR’s period from

2008-09 to 2018-19 ii). Certified copies of Notes/Minutes of the Screening committee held for the purpose of FR 56j/Pre-mature retirement of the applicant.

iii). Certified copies of Notes/Minutes of the Review committee held for the purpose of FR 56j/Pre-mature retirement of the applicant.

iv). Certified copies of Notes/Minutes of the Approval committee held for the purpose of FR 56j/Pre-mature retirement of the applicant.

v). Certified copies of the Departmental note sheets, communication and other material to indicate “Act or Omissions” on the part of the applicant resulted in pre-mature retirement”. Etc.

2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeals dated 11.10.2019 & 10.10.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority vides its orders dated 18.11.2019 &15/18.11.2019, upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO and disposed of his first appeal. Thereafter the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri S. C. Goyal, Asst. Commissioner/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant & the respondent both submitted their written submissions dated 16.08.2021 & dated NIL respectively, and the same have been taken on record.

5. Since the subject matter of all the cases are same in nature, they are being heard and adjudicated together by the Commission.

6. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI applications dated 07.09.2019, 30.08.2019 & 05.09.2019. He further submitted that except on point no. 01, the respondent has wrongly denied the information under Sec. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, without giving any reasons for such denial. He further relied upon two previous decisions passed by the CIC vide its Second Appeal No. CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/155663/03171, dated 31.03.2020 & Second Appeal no. CIC/WB/A/2008/00419, dated 12.01.2008, wherein the Commission has directed the respondent to provide such information which is related to the appellant alone by redacting the names of the review committee members and/

or details of other employees.

7. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 27.09.2019, they have furnished the information on point no. 01 & 07 of the RTI application and on point no. 02 to 06 & 08 to 13, they have denied the information to the appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the appellant was a co-noticee in respect of the show-cause notice issued by the department which was pending for adjudication at that point in time and the file in question contains the detail of other employees as well.

8. The appellant vehemently denied the assertion made by the respondent and submitted that the prosecution in the show cause was already completed on 23.08.2019 and penalty was also imposed on him before the filing of the RTI applications. The penalty imposed upon him has been challenged before the appellate court and is still sub judice.

Decision:

9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that since the prosecution related to show cause notic