JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 order dated 18.7.2018, Ext.P7 order dated 5.9.2018 and Ext.P11 order dated 20.10.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on behalf of the petitioner, retired Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, has been assailed in the present Writ Petition. On the basis of the case booked by the third respondent Deputy Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACP), Kochi, that while working in a Unaccompanied Baggage Section, Air Cargo, Thiruvananthapuram, certain sundry goods baggage of NRI labourers, on 12.7.2012, were cleared without proper assessment, the retirement benefit of the petitioner have been withheld. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, three Superintendents, eight Inspectors, one passenger and six custom house agents were arrayed as accused in the case pending before the Special Judge (SPE/CBE), Thiruvanthapuram bearing No.CC 2/2015.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officer committed a criminal misconduct in presenting two different documents with material alterations in the contents of the statements dated 1.11.2013 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to fabricate false evidence against another Government servant. On receipt of the information of the alleged foul play by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner procured the statements submitted to the Customs Department by the Investigating Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On the request of the petitioner, Chief Information Officer under the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Kochi issued prosecution version and department version in respect of W-54, W-56 and W- 52 and on receipt of the versions through RTI Act, the petitioner lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the Director, CBI, New Delhi on 30.3.2016. Based upon the complaint filed by the petitioner, the first respondent ordered an enquiry in respect of the criminal misconduct of the Investigating Officer by appointing one Sri.Lazarus, Deputy Superintendent of CBI, Special Cell, Chennai as enquiry officer. In order to ascertain the outcome of the aforementioned enquiry, information was sought under the RTI Act and vide Ext.P5 order dated 18.7.2018, CPIO of the first respondent intimated the petitioner that the complaint was enquired and the same has been closed with the perusal of the competent authority i.e. Director, CBI on 22.9.2016 the details of which cannot be shared.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide order dated 5.9.2018 Ext.P7 and the second appeal also resulted into dismissal vide Ext.P11 order dated 20.10.2010. It is contended that the issue in hand is basically related to corruption and CBI is bound by law to furnish the details under the RTI Act. The petitioner has the right to know the outcome of the inquiry by virtue of which an enquiry officer was appointed, so that it can be taken into consideration and used as a defence in the pending criminal case. For the reason, it would have a direct and positive impact on the credibility of the petitioner. Appellate Authorities failed to appreciate that it was a case of clear corruption and violation of human rights. The orders impugned are wholly evasive, opaque and untenable and urged this Court to set aside the order.

4. On the contrary, Sri.Manu, learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the respondent countered the aforementioned argument on the ground that the intention of the petitioner, while seeking information under the RTI Act, is to harass the investigating officer and other officers of CBI who detected and investigated the serious criminal misconduct committed by the petitioner in the capacity of Superintendent of Customs at Air Cargo Complex, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is in the habit of submitting perpetual petitions with intention to delay the ou