TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 8-9-2008. These items correspond to Sl. Nos. 7C to 7H in appellant s second-appeal petition. 2. A Single Bench of the Commission, of Information Commissioner, Shri A.N.Tiwari, heard the second-appeal on 3-6-2009 and referred the matter to a larger Bench. Initially, on the directive of the Chief information Commissioner dated 3-6-2009, a Three-Member-Bench of the Commission comprising Information Commissioners, S/Shri A.N. Tiwari, Satyananda Mishra and O.P. Kejariwal was set up. As Shri O.P. Kejariwal demitted office in February, 2009, the Bench needed to be reconstituted, which was done by including Information Commissioner, Prof. M.M. Ansari as one of its Three members. The other two members remained unchanged. 3. The reconstituted Full Bench heard this matter on 21-8-2009 in the presence of the following :- Appellants : Absent. Respondents : Shri S.K. Tyagi, Director Appellate Authority Shri V. Sree Kumar, Under Secretary CPIO Shri S.K. Dube, Counsel for Respondents. Special Invitee : Shri K.S. Achar, Director, Cabinet Secretariat 4. Respondents initial submission made through their Counsel, Shri S.K. Dube was that presently, the matter before the Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of disclosure of the list of officers who were empanelled as Members, CBEC for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, respondents had taken recourse to exemption under Section 8(1)(i) to decline to disclose the information. The written-statement filed by Shri S.K. Tyagi, Director (Hqrs) and Appellate Authority, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance contained the following observation :- ..................the information sought except the list of officers who were empanelled in the years 2006, 2007 2008 was provided to the applicant vide letter No. 50/114/2008-Ad.I dated 10-10-2008 and there was no delay as alleged. As already indicated in the reply of the CPIO and the Order of the Appellate Authority, the list of Officers who were actually empanelled as Members in the years 2006, 2007 2008 was prepared by the Department of Personnel and Training with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet and classified as SECRET/CONFIDENTIAL in nature. The information which could be disclosed have been already been supplied to the appellant vide letter dated 10-10-2008 and Order dated 28-11-2008. As with held information are exempted under Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(i) and 8(1)(j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. He also pointed out that empanelment of officers was made after an elaborate background check of each such officer. Frequently, there was a gap between the preparation of panel and the posting of the officer to the higher post. It was possible that during this gap period, new information about the background of the officer comes in the possession of the government and, a decision is then made not to post such an officer in the higher post in spite of his figuring on the panel. Should the panel be available in the public domain, non-appointment of an officer who already figures on the panel due to new background information coming to the notice of the Government, could well be misconstrued and misinterpreted by the public as well as the officers of the organisation and, may lead to rumours, conjectures and innuendos, which again may have a negative impact on the organizational morale and interpersonal relations. Should the Government were to be called upon to explain why it took a certain decision in the case of such an officer, the revelation may lead to removing the customary cloak of secrecy from the source of such information, i.e. vigilance officers of the Government, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, we do not find the submission sufficiently persuasive. In several decisions of the Commission (Gopal Kumar v. Army HQs; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00069; Date of Decision : 13-7-2006 and B.L. Sinha v. Company Affairs, Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00256; Date of Decision : 3-5-2007) disclosure of Departmental Promotion Committee-related information had been authorized. It was held that transparency in the process through which a public authority or the government selects personnel to man its high offices, was not only desirable, it was essential in order to remove all doubts and apprehensions about the integrity of the processes. Far from negatively impacting the morale of the organization, transparency in this process actually promoted organizational morale by improving the measure of trust which defined the relationship between the organization and its employees. It also puts the higher management of the Government or the public authority on its guard to be scrupulously fair in selecting the officers for empanelment for various category of posts. 17. We also seriously considered the arguments of the Counsel for the respondents that the first prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
