CIC Upholds Denial of RTI Request by Ex-ITO Citing Pending Disciplinary Probes

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed appeals filed by a retired Income Tax Officer seeking information related to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, upholding the denial under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari ruled that disclosing the requested information would impede the investigation process.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Rajendra Bhagwat Dond , retired as an Income Tax Officer (Sr. Scale) on May 31, 2020. While in service under the Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Pune, two separate Memorandums of Charge (MOC) were issued against him:

Trap Case: MOC dated May 5, 2020, following an alleged trap by the CBI on December 29, 2016, related to accepting a bribe.

Disproportionate Assets (DA) Case: MOC dated May 19, 2020, following the registration of a DA case by CBI, ACB, Pune.

Mr. Dond filed three separate RTI applications on September 6, 2023, seeking: * The basis for initiating departmental inquiry proceedings in the Trap case. * The basis for initiating departmental inquiry proceedings in the DA case. * A copy of the Inquiry Officer's factual report on objections he raised in the DA case proceedings.

CPIO and FAA Decisions

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Income Tax Department, Pune, denied all three requests on October 4, 2023. The CPIO invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the information sought would impede the process of investigation as the disciplinary proceedings were ongoing. It was also stated that the information was confidential and its disclosure was not warranted in the larger public interest.

Dissatisfied, Mr. Dond filed First Appeals. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), in detailed orders dated December 1, 2023, upheld the CPIO's decision across all appeals. The FAA elaborated that: * Both disciplinary proceedings (Trap and DA cases) were pending. * Disciplinary investigations are considered ongoing until the competent authority makes a final determination of culpability. * The appellant had raised technical/jurisdictional objections, which were disposed of, and the FAA suggested the RTIs were filed subsequently to potentially impede the inquiries. * Section 8(1)(h) provides an exemption, often considered absolute by courts in such contexts, for information that could hamper investigations. * The information sought (basis for inquiry, internal reports/notes) could prejudice the pending proceedings. * There was no overriding larger public interest justifying disclosure, especially since the information pertained directly to the appellant's own pending cases.

Arguments Before the CIC

During the hearing on April 25, 2025, the appellant's representative argued that the information was wrongly denied under Section 8(1)(h) without proper justification and was necessary for Mr. Dond to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. Specific procedural issues were also raised regarding the competency of an initial Inquiry Officer and lack of hearing on objections in one case.

The respondent CPIO reiterated the stance taken by the CPIO and FAA, emphasizing that the disciplinary inquiries were incomplete. They pointed to the detailed reasoning in the FAA's orders and maintained that disclosing internal correspondence and investigation-related information would impede the process, falling squarely under the Section 8(1)(h) exemption.

CIC's Analysis and Decision

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, after examining the facts and hearing both parties, found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the CPIO and FAA. The Commission noted:

> "The core contention of the Appellant revolves around the issue of denial of information by the CPIO and FAA under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act... the CPIO clarified the factual position by explaining that issue/matter pertaining to information sought was under investigation and disclosure of requested information would impede the process of investigation..."

The CIC explicitly agreed that the disclosure of the sought information – the basis for initiating inquiries and internal factual reports – would indeed impede the ongoing investigation process as contemplated under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts:

> "...(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"

The Commission found no infirmity in the detailed, self-explanatory orders passed by the FAA, which addressed the appellant's grounds and relied on established legal principles regarding the scope of 'investigation' in disciplinary matters and the application of Section 8(1)(h).

Concluding that the denial of information was justified under the RTI Act, the CIC disposed of all three appeals.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed.