के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/MMSME/A/2024/131648 Ashutosh Kumar .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम

1. The CPIO M/o. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, O/o. the Development Commissioner, Assistant Director (Vigilance Section), Room No-706, A Wing, 7th Floor, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110108

2. The CPIO M/o. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, O/o. the Development Commissioner, Assistant Director (A. B. Division), Nirman Bhawan, Delhi -110108 ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondents Date of Hearing : 20.01.2026 Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 25.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 28.08.2024 First appeal filed on : 02.09.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 10.09.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.09.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2024 seeking the following information:

“1 The office-memorandum F.NO-1/46/2016-veg dated 13 may 2020 issued by Dy Director (veg) Dr. RK Bharti mentioned that by speaking order passed in the file by the appointing authority (C.A) accepted in the hon'ble high court / Ranchi by the CBI(Ranchi) copy of the said speaking order to be provided along with the note sheet & letter or mail forwarded to CBI (ACB)/ Ranchi and CVC also in case no. RC-

17(A)/2016-R CBI(ACB)/ Ranchi, 2. Whether any file was put up for prosecution of Shri Ashutosh Kumar in RC- 17(A)/20/2016-R, before the competent authority then Shri Ram Mohan Mishra, SS & DC (MSME) in first quarter Jan to March or up to April 2020. If yes please provide the copy of the note-sheet and letter forwarded to CBI (ACB)/Ranchi and CVC in reference to the decision of the Competent authority.

3. Kindly provide the details of movement of the file during Jan 2020 till first week of August 2020.

4. Whether any decision has been taken at the level of Govt./Ministry, If yes, copy of the order or decision may please be provided.

5. Whether any new evidence placed in 2nd instance of Sanction of prosecution by the C.A; if yes please provide the new evidence. If no, please provide only the note sheet/order sheet by which in 2nd instance Sanction granted by the next authority only to withdraw the displeasures against Dc/secretary, please provide the entire file and note sheet by which decision has been taken for prosecution sanction in second time with the name of sanctioning authority.

6. Also provide the document of then union minister MSME; who take a decision that Shri Ashutosh Kumar, DGM & GM (I/C) TRTC Patna found Administratively correct. IF Yes, provide the Copy of the then Hon'ble Minister MSME along with their remark and order sheet/note sheet.”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.08.2024 stating as under:

“1. The information w.r.t. S. No. (1) to (5) are exempted under section

8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. The information w.r.t. S. No. (6) pertains to AB Division, O/o DC(MSME).

3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated

02.09.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 10.09.2024, held as under:-

“In this regard, it may be noted that all the information and documents being sought through RTI application dated 25th July, 2024 by the appellant are related to file noting, file movement relating to sanction of prosecution accorded against you which are confidential in nature and disclosure of which will be prejudicial to the prosecution case and disclosure of such information is also barred u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.

In this context, it would be apt to refer to the Delhi High Court order dated 11.11.2006 in WP(C) No. 16712/2006 (Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Union of India &

ors.) in which the Hon'ble court observed as follows.

"Since prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been completed, it cannot be inferred that divulgence of information