TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harsh to impose penalty on CPIO/Registrar in this case. However, it will be appropriate to warn the CPIO and Deemed CPIO to be careful of making such mistakes and to not be forgetful of the code of judicial propriety which is enshrined in the scheme of the RTI Act.With the above directions, this Complaint is accordingly disposed of. - CIC/SS/A/2012/000300 - - - Dated:- 6-7-2012 - Ms. Sushma Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.K. Jain, the Appellant. [Order]. The Complainant in this complaint made under Section 18 of the RTI Act is aggrieved with the alleged misconduct of the CPIO and deemed CPIO of Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ( CESTAT ) who, according to the Complainant, have knowingly and with mala fide intention, withheld the information which was otherwise directed to be provided to the Complainant by the First Appellate Authority ( FAA ) of CESTAT vide its Order No. 15 of 2011, dated 7-9-2011. 2. The brief facts leading to this complaint were frescoed by this Commission in its earlier Order dated 4-8-2011 passed in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001070 titled as R.K. Jain v. CESTAT, New Delhi and the relevant extracts from the said Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commending complete disclosure of the information sought by the Complainant but the President, CESTAT advised in the same note that till appropriate decision was taken on the inquiry report, it was neither appropriate nor possible to disclose the report and the same had to be treated as confidential. The President, CESTAT further stated that report was under examination and appropriate decision would be taken within six to eight weeks time and that the complainant can approach thereafter. 6. Finally, the FAA, CESTAT vide its Order dated 3-5-2011 held that the President, CESTAT was the custodian of the said inquiry report and neither did the CPIO nor the FAA have access to the said report as was submitted by the Inquiry Committee to the Hon ble President, CESTAT. While reiterating the views expressed by the Hon ble President, CESTAT in his reply to the note dated 28-4-2011 (supra), the first appeal was accordingly disposed of. 7. The Complainant, aggrieved by the said Order of the FAA, has preferred second appeal under the RTI Act before the Commission. 3. After having heard the parties and perused through the material placed on record, this Commission had disposed of Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below : Point 3. Now it is ascertained from the Registrar of CESTAT that the Hon ble President has rejected the said report and appointed another Committee under the chairmanship of Shri. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) to enquire into the entire matter afresh and furnish a fresh report. Point 4. At this point of time the reason stated in the order dated 3-5-2011, of this authority for refusing to give a copy of the report to the Appellant does not subsist. Therefore, it is only proper that a copy of the report is made available as directed by the Information Commissioner in para 17 of her order dated 4-8-2011. Point 5. CPIO may obtain a copy of the report from the Registrar and furnish the said copy to Shri R.K. Jain within 15 days of this order. 6. The Complainant, thereafter, sent letter dated 15-9-2011 to the CPIO of CESTAT and requested him to comply with the directions issued by the FAA vide Order dated 7-9-2011. However, neither the Registrar of CESTAT nor the CPIO of CESTAT has made any effort to act upon the directions issued to them by the FAA. - It is pertinent to note that till date, the Inquiry Report as sought by Complainant in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/00107 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry Report and accordingly, ordered for a fresh inquiry into the matter. 11. To say that such Inquiry Report, which was found unsatisfactory by the president, CESTAT, is no longer valid or does not exist in the eyes of law will be incorrect, inasmuch as the said Report forms part of the official records maintained by CESTAT and therefore, constitutes information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 12. The fact that the said Inquiry Report has not been acted upon or that the President, CESTAT has chosen not to take cognizance thereof is a matter of administrative discretion enjoyed by the President, CESTAT and by virtue of the same, the President, CESTAT may perhaps consider such report to be invalid. But the exercise of such discretion does not mean that the official records comprising of such Inquiry Report would be erased once and for all. The CESTAT as a public authority will nevertheless continue to hold the said Inquiry Report in its control and the said Inquiry Report will continue to be in the custody of CESTAT. The officials appearing on behalf of CESTAT have not made any submission to suggest that the said Inquiry Report has either been destroyed or wiped off the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o provide a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Complainant within 15 days thereof as directed by the FAA. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Commission directs the CPIO, CESTAT to comply with the Order No. 15 of 2011 dated 7-9-2011 passed by the FAA, CESTAT and to provide a copy of the Inquiry Report, as sought by the Complainant in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001070, to the Complainant within 15 days of receipt of this Order, free of cost. 18. The Commission, however, would like to clarify that it appears that the CPIO, CESTAT and the Registrar, CESTAT need not be penalized under Section 20 of the RTI Act, given the peculiar circumstances of the present case. The CPIO as well as the Registrar, CESTAT, in view of the Commission, did not act with mala fide intent or ulterior motive and were perhaps under the mistake of law, especially given the fact that the President, CESTAT being the administrative head of CESTAT had issued certain directions which were binding on the CPIO and the Registrar, CESTAT otherwise. The confusion was perhaps created since the administrative directions issued to the CPIO were conflicting with his statutory duties prescribed under the RTI Act and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
