TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and P. Sarkar, SO, for the Respondent. 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 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and disposed of the appeal. 4. During the hearing, 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 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficers. He argued that he should also be provided the 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 Dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....likely to serve any larger public interest or not. In the 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 ....