Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Central Informatic Commission & ... on 11 November, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2411/2008
% Date of decision : 11th November, 2009
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Geetanjali Mohan,
Advocate Ms. Akanksha Gaur,
Adv.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATIC COMMISSION
& OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Shangara Singh, Adv. for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Mr. Sudeep Kumar Jain, the respondent No.2 herein had
filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) seeking
information in respect of disciplinary proceedings initiated
against him.
3. The respondent No.2 was working as Office
WPC NO.2411/2008 Page 1
Superintendent at Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Patiala.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the
ground that during the period 1st May, 1992 to 10th February,
1995, he had misappropriated Rs.52,500/- from the sale
proceeds of tender documents. Accordingly, charge sheet
dated 31st July, 1995, on 8 charges, was served.
4. The charge sheet itself was made subject matter of
challenge before the Administrative Tribunal under the
Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in
O.A.No.1027/PB/1999. This original application was disposed
of vide order dated 10th October, 2000, upholding the charge
sheet.
5. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of
dismissal from service vide the order dated 6th February,
2001. The revisionary authority by the order dated 4th
October, 2005, modified the penalty of dismissal to that of
compulsory retirement.
6. This order passed by the revisionary authority was also
made subject matter of challenge before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and stands disposed of
vide order dated 12th December, 2008, upholding the said
penalty. Learned Tribunal has noticed that the petitioner
WPC NO.2411/2008 Page 2
himself had admitted failure to deposit the tender sale
consideration because of family reasons.
7. Not satisfied with the reply/information furnished
pursuant to the application made under the Act, the
respondent No.2 had filed a second appeal before the Central
Information Commission. While the appeal was pending
before the Central Information Commission, on 26th February,
2007, the original file was made available for inspection to the
respondent No.2.
8. By letter dated 26th February, 2007, the respondent No.2
made a request for supply of documents at Sr. Nos. 196, 498
to 505, 609, 624 to 636 and 552 to 663. The petitioner
supplied above mentioned documents except 13 pages at Sr.
Nos. 624 to 636, which were found to be missing and were not
available.
9. The issue of missing pages was raised before the Central
information Commission. The petitioner appointed a two
member committee to examine the question of 13 missing
pages and a report was submitted before the Central
Information Commission. The two member committee came
to the conclusion that though it could not be conclusively
proved that pages went missing when the file was in custody
WPC NO.2411/2008 Page 3
of Mr. Sanghara Singh, CLA but there were circumstances
which indicated that these papers went missing when the file
changed hands between Mr. Sanghara Singh, CLA and the
Railway Advocate. It was also noticed that Mr. Sanghara Singh
did not check page numbers when the file was received back
from the office of the Railway Advocate.
10. Learned member of the Central Information Commission
was not satisfied with the said enquiry and, therefore,
directed Advisor (Vigilance), Railway Board to conduct an
enquiry to fix responsibility for destruction of the particular
information so that penalty could be imposed upon the erring
official. It was also observed that enquiry would be monitored
by the Information Commission.
11. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Railway
Board, Vigilance Department has now conducted an enquiry
and the enquiry report will be made available to the Central
Information Commission. Copy of the enquiry report has been
filed with the rejoinder. As per the enquiry conducted by the
Railway Board, Vigilance Department, the papers were
missing from the file as on 5th August, 2006. This fact was
recorded on 5th August, 2006. Reference is made to the letter
dated 8th August, 2006, whereby a report was sent to office of
WPC NO.2411/2008 Page 4
the CLA and reply was received from CLA on 22nd August,
2006, about non-availability of papers.
12. The report by the Railway Board, Vigilance Department
is fairly detailed. Central Information Commission did not have
benefit of the said report when the impugned order was
passed. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the
Central Information Commission. The Central Information
Commission will also examine the question of penalty;
whether any penalty should be imposed, and on whom the
penalty, if any, should be imposed. As per proviso 20 of the
Act, penalty may be imposed after giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing. Directions imposing penalty are set
aside.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, the directions given by the
Central Information Commission in paragraph 9, directing
Member (Mechanical), Railway Board to initiate disciplinary
action against R.K. Sangar, PIO and Dy.CME/Monitoring/DMW
under the service rules is also set aside. This question will be
examined by the Central Information Commission. The
petitioner will also be entitled to raise contention that the
Central Information Commission cannot direct initiation of
disciplinary proceedings but can only recommend initiation of
WPC NO.2411/2008 Page 5
disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act. At
this stage, this Court is not examining and interpreting
Section 20(2) of the Act.
14. The parties will appear before the Registrar, Central
Information Commission on 8th December, 2009, when further
date of hearing will be fixed. It is made clear that the
observations made above are for the purpose of deciding of
the writ petition and the Central Information Commission will
independently apply their mind without being influenced by
the observations made above and in their earlier order dated
6th November, 2007.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 11, 2009
NA/P
WPC NO.2411/2008 Page 6
