Korada Sreenivasa Rao vs Central Public Information ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3939 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: 04.09.2013

+      W.P.(C) 7918/2012

       KORADA SREENIVASA RAO                                ..... Petitioner
                   Through:Petitioner in person.

                            versus

       CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
                                                                  ..... Respondent
                            Through:Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
                            Mr.Akshay Chandra, Advocate for respondent/UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                     JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) The petitioner vide an application dated 24th October, 2011 sought the

following information from the Central Public Information Officer, DSIR, Ministry

of Science and Technology:-

- Attested copies of the entire correspondence that has been transcribed on the files/file notings from page number one to till last page in which decisions have been taken by the DSIR to place me under suspension initially vide DSIR's file No.C- 11017/01/04-Admn./DSIR dated 5-3-2004 and susbsequent extensions of orders of the suspension inflicted on me vide DSIR's even file number dated 1-6-2004 and 20-12-2004.

- Attested copies of the report/s submitted by the fact- finding committee comprising with the DSIR officers namely

Vibhu Rashmi and GM Bagai, during 20-2-2004 to 20-12-2004 to DSIR which ultimately led the DSIR to place me under suspension and extension of suspension vide above cited DSIR orders.

- Attested copies of the entire correspondence transcribed between Jagdish Singh, Subrato Banerjee, Vibhu Rashmi, GM Bagai, Gurmit Singh, Gurdev Singh Basran and other DSIR officers during the period of 20-2-2004 to 20-12-2004 which ultimately led the DSIR to place me under suspension and extensions of suspension vide above cited DSIR orders."

2. Vide another application of even date, he sought the following information:-

- Attested copies of the entire correspondence that has been transcribed on the files/file notings from page number one to till last page in which decision had been taken by the DSIR to issue a second charge-sheet against me vide DSIR's file No.C- 11013/01/2005-Admn., dated 11-4-2005."

3. The information sought by the petitioner was denied by the CPIO vide

communication dated 17.11.2011. Being aggrieved from denial of the information,

the petitioner filed two separate appeals before the First Appellate Authority. Both

the appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved from

dismissal of his appeals, the petitioner filed two appeals before the Central

Information Commission vide CIC File Nos. CIC/LS/A/2011/001069 and other

vide CIC/LS/A/2011/000314.

4. Vide order dated 19th June, 2012, the Commission, inter alia, directed as

under:-

"5. On a direction from the Commission, the relevant files are produced before the Commission which are perused. The files, indeed, contain sensitive information and the disclosure of the file notings is likely to prejudice the Government's case in the court. Besides, it would not be wise to disclose identity of the officers who made notings in the file. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the appellant's request to give him copy of the file noting. However, in my opinion, there is no harm if the file notings are allowed to be inspected by him in the presence of a senior officer of DSIR for half a day. The inspection will be given on a mutually convenient date and time. It is clarified that photo copies of any documents will not be supplied to the appellant."

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commission did not direct even

inspection of the file relating to his suspension and inspection only of the file

related to his dismissal from service was given to him. The petitioner states that he

is not satisfied with mere inspection and wants copies of file notings in both the

above referred file. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19 th June, 2012 would

show that the Commission passed an order directing inspection only of the file in

which disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated and he was

dismissed from service. The order of the Commission is silent with respect to the

file in which suspension of the petitioner was processed. It would only be

appropriate that the Commission applies its mind and passes an appropriate order

also with respect to the request of the petitioner for supplying him notings of the

file in which his suspension was processed. The Court, in that case would have

benefit of the view of the Commission with respect to the file in which suspension

of the petitioner was processed.

6. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 19 th June, 2012, is set

aside and the respondent is directed to pass a fresh order not only with respect to

supply of copies of notings related to the file in which dismissal of the petitioner

from service was processed but also of the file in which his suspension was

processed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. A fresh order

in terms of this order shall be passed by the Commission within eight weeks of the

parties appearing before the Commission. The parties are directed to appear before

the Registrar of the Central Information Commission at 2:00 p.m. on 23.9.2013.

The petition stands disposed of.

V.K. JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2013 ks