Arun Palli, J.@mdashWe are seized of an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. Matter in hand is an offshoot of an infamous "Chandigarh Teachers Recruitment Scam". Finding, that there were mass scale bungling in the selection of teachers, the appellant filed a complaint with the CB1 (respondent No. 1). CBI held a preliminary inquiry and probed the matter at some length. Eventually, only a report was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer (Chandigarh), recommending certain corrective steps. However, pursuant to a complaint received by the Chandigarh Police, an FIR was registered in the matter and the same being investigated.
2. The appellant sought certain documents along with a complete information, from respondent No. 1, in relation to the complaint he had made. Initially, respondent No. 1 had decided to supply the information sought for by the appellant. However, subsequently the same was denied on the ground that a petition bearing number CWP No. 17021 of 2009 - Karamjit Singh v. Union of India and others, was pending before this Court, wherein, a direction was being prayed to hand over the investigation being carried out by the Chandigarh Police to CBI. Aggrieved by this, appellant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission (for short, ''the Commission''). The prayer made by the appellant was accepted and respondent No. 1 was directed to supply the information, as was initially agreed to, along with the report that was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Chandigarh. It is the said order, which was assailed by the CBI, before the learned Single Judge of this Court.
3. The short question, that evolved for consideration before the learned Single Judge was, could the order passed by the Commission be sustained in the wake of the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) & (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ''the Act''). On an analysis of the matter, the learned Single Judge was of the view, that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 30.03.2012 in Karamjit Singh''s case (supra), CBI had registered an FIR on 24.05.2012, in relation to selection of teachers. The matter was being investigated by the CBI and, therefore, in terms of Section 8(1)(g) & (h) of the Act, the information in relation thereto could not be supplied. However, the report that was sent to the Administration by the CBI, pursuant to the complaint made by the appellant, was directed to be supplied, as the same could not be treated as part of the investigation. The operative part of the said order reads as thus:
As the situation stands today, in terms of the directions issued by this Court, FIR has been registered by CBI for investigation into the scam pertaining to recruitment of teachers in Chandigarh. No doubt, the prayer in the wilt petition filed before this Court was for transfer of investigation in the FIR already registered by Chandigarh Police, but the direction of this court is for handing over the entire record pertaining to the case, which was either with Chandigarh Police or the preliminary enquiry conducted by CBI on a complaint filed by respondent No. 2.
Though respondent No. 2 sought to raise an apprehension that the grievance raised by him in his complaint may not be enquired into by CBI, hence, this cannot be said to be a matter under investigation and the copies of documents forming part thereof can be supplied to him, as the bar u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act will not be applicable. However, the contention is misconceived, if considered in the light of the directions issued by this court and the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner before this court. Once the matter is under investigation, in terms of provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, the information pertaining thereto cannot be supplied in a query under the Act.
4. We have heard the appellant, who appeared in person and the counsel for respondent No. 1.
5. The appellant reiterates his case and the submissions he had advanced before the learned Single Judge. He submits, that it was only the investigation that was being carried out pursuant to an FIR registered by the Chandigarh Police, which was entrusted to CBI. The subject matter of the said FIR was altogether different. Thus, what was being investigated were not the allegations he had made in his complaint. That being so, the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) & (h) of the Act were of no consequence.
6. Per contra, counsel for respondent No. 1, contends that initially the CBI passed an order to provide the documents and the information that has been sought by the appellant. However, having got to know that a writ petition was pending before this Court, wherein the investigation that was being carried out by the Chandigarh Police, was prayed to be entrusted to CBI, the said decision was reversed. As it could adversely effect the investigation of the case, in the eventuality of the investigation being entrusted to CBI, by this Court. He submits, that post directions by this Court on 30.03.2012, an FIR stood registered by the CBI on 24.05.2012. It was reiterated that the matter was investigated from every conceivable angle including the illegalities and irregularities pointed out by the appellant in the complaint made by him.
7. It is deemed apposite and necessary, before we proceed further, to refer to the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) & (h), which read as thus:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act/there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
(a) to (f) xx xx xx xx xx
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
8. As is discernible from the records, the information that was directed to be furnished to the appellant, by the Commission, was the action that was resorted to by the CBI pursuant to the complaint made by the appellant. And also the material which was collected in this regard. In CWP No. 17021 of 2009, filed in public interest, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the investigation in the matter be conducted by the CBI, Delhi. All records pertaining to the case, which were with the CBI, Chandigarh and the Chandigarh Police, were directed to be handed over to the CBI, Delhi. It was maintained by learned counsel appearing for the CBI, before learned Single Judge, that the investigation in the matter was not just confined to the FIR registered by the Chandigarh Police, rather, the matter as a whole was under investigation including the illegalities and irregularities pointed out even by the appellant in a complaint made by him.
9. That being so, the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) attracts itself to the matter. Respondent No. 1, is well within its right to claim exemption from disclosure of information under the said clause. Provisions of Section 8(1)(h) are clear, conscious and incapable of any misconstruction. The same postulates that the information that would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give the said information to any citizen.
10. We are reminded to point out at this juncture, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits, that the investigation in the matter is complete. So much so, the CBI has even submitted a final report/charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and the matter is now posted for recording the prosecution evidence on 28.07.2014. Needless to assert, the provisions of Clause (h) does not take only the process of investigation within its sweep but also the prosecution of offenders as well. In the wake of the position as has been noticed above, we are dissuaded to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being bereft of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
