O R D E R

% 12.09.2024

1. The Respondent- Shri K C Sharma is a former employee of the Petitioner Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent which resulted into penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by 3 stages on the date of superannuation. The Respondent after exhausting his appeal remedies, filed an RTI application dated 28th February, 2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005,1 seeking several documents and information in relation to the said disciplinary proceedings. A copy of the RTI Application is reproduced herein below for reference:

1 “RTI Act”

W.P.(C) 13621/2018 Page 1 of 6

2. The CPIO replied on 12th April, 2017, declining the information sought by the Respondent. The matter was carried further in first appeal, whereby the first appellate authority on 27th June, 2017, passed an order directing part disclosure of the information sought, specifically, point 4 of the RTI Application. The second appeal filed by the Respondent has been decided through the order dated 17th September, 2018,2 by the Central Information Commission,3 which reads as follows:

“On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper replies was not provided to the appellant on point

2 “Impugned Order”

3 “CIC”

W.P.(C) 13621/2018 Page 3 of 6 nos. 1 & 5 of the said RTI application. A revised and clear reply should be provided on these points. On point nos. 2 and 3 of the above stated RTI application, the reply provided is just and proper. On point no 4, if the information sought for pertains to a third party, the same should be provided after following due procedure as envisaged u/s 10 of the RTI Act, i.e. after masking names, designations and other identification details of third parties involved in the present case. The sought for information on point nos. 6-10 of the said application is not covered-u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act and hence the same is non disclosable. The replies provided both by the respondent CPIO and by the first appellate authority on these point are found just, proper and comprehensive by the Commission.

Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant on point nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the said RTI application, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing as above, complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g, note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc. (legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.

The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTl appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.

With the above observation/direction/warning, the appeal is disposed of.

Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.”

3. The Petitioner, Food Corporation of India,4 assails the aforenoted order contending that the information sought by the Petitioner is exempted under Section (8)(1)(e), (g),(h) and (j) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has complied in part with the direction passed by the CIC, in the Impugned order, by providing revised information to Respondent qua the information sought at point no. 1,4 and 5 vide letter Dated 22nd October, 2018. The Petitioner thus submits that the limited challenge in the present petition is to the Impugned order in so far as it extends to providing the ‘note sheets’ to Respondent as desired by him. It is pointed out that a similar order W.P.(C) 13621/2018 Page 4 of 6 directing disclosure of such information, was assailed by FCI before this Court in W.P.(C) 10455/2018.5 In that case, the Court held that the information sought, which included note sheets of a v