Shri K.Kaliyamurthy filed an RTI application dt.23.6.09 with the PIO, DoP, Cuddalore requesting for information against 4 points related to the MO fraud detected at Reddiyur S.O. The PIO replied on 10.7.09 informing him that the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation and denied information u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the information, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.28.7.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the case was detected in 2004 and that the investigation has already been completed and officials involved have also been charge-sheeted. He, therefore, averred that the provisions of 8(1)(h) will not apply in this case. The Appellate Authority in his order dt.14.8.09 informed the Applicant that charge sheet has not been issued under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) rules by getting the Presidential sanction. Completion of the investigation would mean the issue of charge sheet and other consequent proceedings. He, therefore, upheld the decision of the PIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.15.9.09 before CIC reiterating his request for the information.

The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 9, 2009. Shri V.S.Mani, PIO represented the Public Authority. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.


The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was working as a Sub Post Master in Reddiyur S.O when the MO fraud was detected by him in Nov.2004. The Appellant was then suspended from service due to supervisory lapses on his part, in Dec.2004 and he retired on 31.12.2004. The Respondent further stated that the reply to the RTI application was given by his (the PIO’s) predecessor who has since been transferred on promotion and that he had taken over charge as the PIO only on 28.10.09. While stating that chargesheet has yet to be issued to the Appellant, the Respondent admitted that information ought to have been provided since the investigation is over and also since the information sought by the Appellant is already in the public domain as the public is aware of the fraud and the amount of money involved as also the names of officials involved in the fraud as offenders and co-offenders. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide complete information against all the points as sought in the RTI application to the Appellant by 9.12.09. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report of the above decision to the Commission on receipt of information, by 16.12.09. The appeal is disposed of with above directions