The court affirmed the principle that denial of RTI requests requires substantial justification, and emphasized transparency by mandating the release of relevant information notwithstanding ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Copy of that final note sheet of the file no. 8/25/2018-DRT in which the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated/rejected by DFS (DRT) having ground of rejection.

(ii) Whether DRT Section has received some observations of CVC in the month of November-December, 2022 and DRT Section has furnished its reply. If the reply of this information as sought is in yes, a copy each of such observation of CVC alongwith specific reply of DRT Section with forwarding letters, If any as available in the aforesaid file be provided.

(iii) Whether the draft charge sheet against me has been modified at any stage. If the answer is yes, a copy of Initial draft charge sheet as well as modified charge- sheet alongwith note-sheet of said file be provided.”

2. The CPIO, Department of Financial Services, replied vide letter dated 14.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“I am to refer to your RTI application dated 18.10.2023 and you are informed that information as defined under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act is 'any material in any form including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any pvt Body which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.' The CPIO is not required to compile/collate/create/ interpret information.

Keeping in view the definition of information as mentioned above, the information sought by you vide S.No. (ii) and (iii) of your application are not specific and also clarificatory in nature. It is also informed that S. No. 4(i) of your application has been transferred to DoPT on 23rd October, 2023 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2023 stating as under:

“The applicant has sought information under RTI Act vide application dated 18.10.2023. However, despite quoting relevant judgments of Central Information Commission in my RTI Application, which says information sought can't be denied, the concerned CPIO (Sh. Subhash Chandra Amin, Under Secretary) vide his reply dated14.11.2023 has provided incorrect, false and misleading information, which attracts Section 20 (Penalties) of The RTI Act. 2005.

2. The information as sought are notings and correspondence portion of file no. 8/25/2018-DRT and are completely available in aforesaid file no. as maintained partly in physical and electronic mode in DFS and hence covered under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act. It need not required to be compiled /collate/created by CPIO. Furthermore, he also transferred the said RTI application to DoPT for sl. 4(i), which is misleading.

2. It is humbly requested to direct CPIO to provide:-

(i) Note-sheet of file no. 8/25/2018-DRT where the reply dated 10.12.2020 for SCN was repudiated.

(ii) Complete set of CVC OM dated 10.11.2022 and reply as furnished vide id note no. 8/5/2018-DRT dated 3.5.2023 as available in aforesaid file.

(iii) Draft charge-sheet as framed by DRT Section for sending CVC and modified draft charge-sheet after advice dated 26.6.2023 of CVC.”

Another reply dated 12.12.2023 of the CPIO, DFS is also placed on record making a reference to the instant RTI Application stating as under:

“I am to refer to your RTI application dated 22.11.2023 which was partially transferred by the answering CPIO to DoP&T on 23rd October, 2023 in respect of S. No. (i) of your RTI application and now the same has been transferred back to DRT Division by DoP&T.

Vide S. No. 4(i) of your RTI application dated 18th October, 2023, you have