के (cid:3)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:18), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/UTOAN/A/2024/121310 Yogesh Tiwari .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम PIO, Assistant Secretary-(Vig.), Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair-744101 (Andaman & Nicobar) .….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date of Decision : 02.12.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 13.05.2024 PIO replied on : 17.05.2024 First appeal filed on : 21.05.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 10.06.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Copy of report submitted by Shri. Kamal Dutta (IFS), APCCF in the matter of Departmental Enquiry of Smti. Madhuri Shukla, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department for the period of 2023-24.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.05.2024 stating as under:

“This is a third-party information. Hence, disclosure of such information is barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 10.06.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Ms. Tripati Amma, Assistant Secretary (Vig.)/PIO, appeared through video conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 07.07.2024 is available on record.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he was serving as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department and is a Group–B Non-Gazetted Government Servant. He stated that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and Smt. Madhuri Shukla, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, A&N Administration, on the allegation that they failed to obtain approval of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor (HLG) prior to filing an affidavit before the Hon’ble Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) in connection with the Tariff Petition for revision of electricity tariff for the financial year 2020-21. 7. He further submitted that the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Authority (IA) pertaining to Smt. Madhuri Shukla is crucial for him to effectively defend himself in the disciplinary case. According to the Appellant, the said report is required to logically counter the contradictory views recorded by the IA in the two inquiry reports arising out of the same preliminary inquiry report, which formed the basis for issuing the chargesheet to both officers.

8. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated nil disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

“Shri Yogesh Tiwari, R/o Nayagaon, sought following information vide an RTI application dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-A) made to PIO, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Vigilance), A&N Administration, requesting to provide the following information:-

1. Copy of report submitted by Shri Kamal Datta (IFS), APCCF in the matter of Departmental Enquiry of Smti. Madhuri Shukla, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department.

In response, the Public Information Officer (Assistant Secretary), Vigilance Department, Port Blair vide letter No.3-164(221)/(RTI)-Vig-2024/643 dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure-B) furnished the reply to the applicant that the matter "This is a third-party information. Hence disclosure of such information is barred under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

The appellant Shri Yogesh Tiwari not being satisfied for not