Advocates:
For the Appellant: Nayana Jena
For the Respondent: Bhawani Shankar Nath

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appellant, Nayana Jena, sought access to an inquiry report related to a departmental inquiry conducted against a public servant, Shri Mukesh Kumar, which was held in September 2022 at RCF Kapurthala (!) .

2. The respondent, CPIO, denied the information citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, claiming that the report contained personal information of third parties and was confidential, thus justifying a blanket denial (!) (!) .

3. The appellant argued that the inquiry report was a matter of public interest, linked to misconduct involving harassment, and that the information was already partially disclosed in departmental proceedings. She contended that the denial was unjustified and that the report was not exempt from disclosure (!) (!) (!) .

4. The respondent defended the denial, asserting that the report was confidential and contained personal information of third parties, which could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. They also stated that the report was not prepared as per the guidelines for harassment cases and that disclosure could threaten personal safety. Additionally, they mentioned that disciplinary action had already been taken based on the report and that the appellant was awaiting court proceedings (!) (!) .

5. The Commission reviewed the case and observed that the denial of the entire inquiry report was unjustified. It emphasized that such reports, related to departmental inquiries involving misconduct, are generally part of the public record unless specifically exempted. The Commission highlighted that even if parts of the report contain personal information, the RTI Act provides for redaction under Section 10 to protect third-party privacy while still disclosing relevant information (!) (!) (!) .

6. The Commission directed the respondent to disclose the inquiry report to the appellant after applying redactions to protect third-party identities and other sensitive information that could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The disclosure should be comprehensive, with specific reasons provided if any part is withheld, and to be completed within three weeks from the receipt of the order (!) (!) .

7. The First Appellate Authority's (FAA) order, which upheld the initial denial, was found to lack justification in light of the principles of transparency and the public interest in accountability concerning misconduct allegations. The Commission's decision emphasizes that confidentiality cannot be claimed for departmental inquiries that are part of the public record unless explicitly exempted (!) (!) .

8. The case underscores that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency in public administration, and blanket exemptions without specific justification are not permissible. Proper application of exemptions, including redaction under Section 10, is essential to balance privacy concerns with the public's right to information (!) .

9. The respondent is instructed to comply with the order within three weeks and to provide a detailed account of any redactions made, citing the relevant exemption clauses and explaining the harm that would result from full disclosure (!) .

10. The appeal is thus disposed of with the direction that the inquiry report be disclosed in the manner specified, reinforcing the principles of transparency, accountability, and the limited scope of exemptions under the RTI Act.