के ኚ᭾ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई नि्ቤी, New Delhi – 110067 ्षितीय अपील सं्ቅा / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICARH/A/2023/623125 Dr. Sheela Raj … अपीलकताा/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम CPIO, Indian Council of Agricultural Research …्ቚ्षतवादीगण /Respondent (ICAR) Hqrs., New Delhi Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Decision : 11.06.2024 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 03.02.2023 PIO replied on : 07.03.2023 First Appeal filed on : 29.03.2023 First Appellate Order on : 28.04.2023 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.05.2023 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-

1. “Certified true copy of the preliminary investigation report submitted to ICAR, HQs by the committee constituting Dr. S.M. Palve, Vigilance Officer, CICR, Nagpur and Shri A.A Goswami, Sr Administrative Officer, CICR, Nagpur.

2. Certified true copy of the complaint letter from Director, ICAR-CIRCOT to ICAR, HQs as mentioned in the above reference letter.

3. Certified true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 03/11/2018 at ICAR-CIRCOT.

4. Certified true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 19/11/2018 at ICAR-CIRCOT.

5. Certified true copies of all the correspondences between the committee and ICAR, HQS & ICAR-CIRCOT in the said matter at reference.

6. Certified true copies of all documents/ orders/ correspondences between Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, GOI with ICAR HQS & ICAR- CIRCOT in the said matter at reference.”

The CPIO & Under Secretary (Vig.-II), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi vide letter dated 07.03.2023 replied as under:-

“Point No. 1, 2, 5 & 6:- Information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.

Point No. 3 & 4: - Information pertains to ICAR- CIRCOT, Mumbai.

Points 5 & 6 information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2023 stated as under:-

“Xx Xx Whereas I have carefully gone through the appeal and the issue raised therein. It is observed that the appeal has been preferred due to non-receipt of information from CPIO (Vig.II). The applicant had sought information primarily on the following aspect, which were related to vigilance files dealing with a complaint against the applicant.

True Copies of the documents in the file dealing with a vigilance complaint against her.

As regards to this, here, the decision of CIC vide No.

CIC/SB/A/2015/00649 dated 08.02.2017 in Shri. Satya Vijay Singh Vs. CVC is referred to. Here, the CVC has disposed of a similar appeal and reiterated its earlier decision in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617dated 16.09.2009, where the Commission has held that:

"6.........In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable 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 even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for dam