Delhi High Court
Upsc vs Tarsem Lal on 22 October, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.10.2013
+ WP(C) No.4661 of 2011
UPSC ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Aditi Gupta &
Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advs.
versus
TARSEM LAL ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
The respondent before this Court applied to the CPIO of the
petitioner-Union Public Service Commission (for short „UPSC‟) seeking
the following information:
"(i) Please provide a copy of the minutes of the
Commission‟s meeting held on 24 June, 2010.
(ii) Under what circumstances Shri Biresh Kumar,
Additional Secretary presented/presided over the meeting when
he is complainant in some cases viz. Shri Tarsem Lal, Deputy
Secretary.
(iii) What safeguards were adopted to ensure Shri Biresh
Kumar, IAS does not influence the proceedings of the
Commission.
(iv) Please provide copies of the notings of the Commission‟s
relevant file pertaining to the processing of the disciplinary case
of Shri Tarsem Lal, Deputy Secretary leading to the issue of the
Commission‟s advice to DOP&T.
(v) Also allow to inspect the relevant file of the Commission
and vigilance file No.C13019/2/2006- Vigilance, F25/41/2005-
(RC&P)/SPC-I and 1/346(80)/2004-R-1/SPC-1.
(vi) A copy of the reference dated 9.11.2009 made by
DOP&T seeking advice of the Commission in the said
disciplinary case."
2. The information, however, was not supplied by the CPIO except
to the extent of informing that the meeting referred to at serial No.(ii)
was held under the chairmanship of the Chairman, UPSC as per normal
procedure. Being aggrieved from the reply furnished to him by the
CPIO the respondent preferred an appeal which came to be rejected by
the First Appellate Authority. The respondent thereupon filed a second
appeal before the Central Information Commission (for short
„Commission‟) which, vide impugned order dated 13.5.2011 directed
supply of information in respect of items at serial Nos.(i), (iv) & (v).
The Commission also felt that the action of the PIO in not furnishing
information on the aforesaid points attracted the penal provisions of
Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and, therefore,
issued a show cause notice to him as to why the penalty be not levied on
him. Vide subsequent order dated 1.6.2011 the Commission, on
recording the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that they
intended to challenge the order dated 13.5.2011, kept the issue of
penalty on the CPIO in abeyance. Being aggrieved from the orders
dated 13.5.2011 and 1.6.2011 the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The respondent has not put appearance despite having been duly
served. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and examined the record.
4. As regards information at serial No.(i) is concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent wanted a copy of the
minutes only to the extent it pertained to the advice of the petitioner in
the matter of disciplinary proceedings against him. He further states
that at the time the information was sought the disciplinary proceedings
had not been finalised and, therefore, the aforesaid information was not
supplied. He also states that the said information has since been
supplied to the respondent. In view of the said statement no order needs
to be passed with respect to the information mentioned at serial No.(i) of
the application of the respondent.
5. As regards the information sought at serial Nos.(iv) & (v), it
appears that the respondent is seeking the copies of the office notings
recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the correspondence exchanged
between the UPSC and the Department in which the respondent was
working. The respondent also seems to be seeking inspection of the file
in which the matter was dealt with by the petitioner.
6. As regards copies of file notings and correspondence exchanged
between the UPSC and the Department which seeks its advice, this Court
vide order dated 10.10.2013 passed in WP (C) No.4079/2013 titled UPSC
Vs. G.S. Sandhu & connected matters took the view that - (i) the copies of
office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the
correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which
its advice was sought, when sought by a person to whom the said notings
and correspondence pertain, have to be provided to him after removing
from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the
letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person
recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in
the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the
identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be. It was further
directed that if the notings and/or correspondence referred above contains
personal information relating to a third party, such information will be
excluded while providing the information sought by the applicant.
7. In view of the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is disposed of
by modifying the order passed by the Commission to the extent that the
petitioner shall supply to the respondent within four (4) weeks from
today, copies of the office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well
as copies of correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the
Department by which the advice was sought after removing therefrom
(a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name
and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter
and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which
may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as
the case may be. It is further directed that if the notings and/or
correspondence in question contain personal information related to a
third party such information shall also be excluded while providing
information sought by the respondent. The respondent shall also be
entitled to inspection of the files containing the said notings and
correspondences, but, only after excluding (a) to (c) above, therefrom.
8. Considering the ground on which information was denied to the
respondent, I am of the view that no penalty in terms of Section 20 (1)
of the RTI Act needs not be imposed upon the CPIO of the petitioner.
The proceedings initiated by the Commission against the CPIO are,
therefore, dropped.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
OCTOBER 22, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
