9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER The Appellant was present. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present : (i) Sh. G.S. Sharma, Director (ii) Sh. P. Sarkar, SO 2. We heard all the parties. 3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought some information and also the permission to inspect a number of files and documents relating to the pending cases of complaint, vigilanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring, among other submissions, the Appellant specifically wanted us to take note of the fact that the Appellate Authority had not given him any opportunity of hearing even after he expressly requested for that. He also, with the help of some information he had obtained through RTI from the CVC, submitted that the Appellate Authority in the CVC had not given any personal hearing to anyone except i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining information because it would serve a larger public interest. He explained that all these three officers had been facing serious vigilance charges and, in spite of that, they had been given vigilance clearance by the CVC and based on that, they had even been offered further appointments to sensitive posts like the ombudsman in the Department. According to him, the disclosure of this info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case, if what the Appellant has submitted is true, namely, that vigilance clearance has been granted to all or some of these officers by the CVC while various complaints of the vigilance nature were either pending or under enquiry against them, then, it would be absolutely necessary that this information should be disclosed because that would serve a larger public interest by exposing wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
