Judgment ( 1. ) CLAIMING exemption from disclosure of information under section 8 (1), (e), (g) and (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2005), the petitioner, Union of India, through its General manager, West Central Railway Jabalpur calls in question the legality of the order dated 1. 6. 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission in a second Appeal preferred by respondent No. 2. ( 2. ) THE following information on 1. 12. 2008 was sought by the respondents No. 2, who has been subjected to a departmental enquiry on the alleged misconduct, formulated on the basis of the investigation report by the Chief Vigilance Officer: 1. 1. The attested readable Xerox copy of complete Investigation report of investigating Agency. 1. 2 The attested readable Xerox copy of list of "allegations" on the basis of which the investigation was carried out. 1. 3 The attested readable Xerox copy of Investigation Report on the basis of which the "allegations" were substantiated. 1. 4 The attested readable Xerox copy of remarks of the CVO on the established allegations taken forwarding the documents for first stage advice of CVC as laid down, in terms of CVCs Circular nz/prc/1 dated 09-05-2005 (Office Order No. 30/5/05 ). 1. 5 The attested readable Xerox copy of remarks of the disciplinary Authority on the "allegations" offered before the case was sent to CVC as stated in terms of CVCs aforesaid circular dated 09-5-05. 1. 6 The attested readable Xerox copy of pages wherein decision of CPO, SDGM, and GM was recorded on recommendation of sdgm after completion of investigation by CVI in my case after recording my clarifications and before the case was sent for first stage advice of CVC. 1. 7. The attested readable Xerox copy of letters of SDGM, railway Board and CVC whereby the case was referred to CVC for obtaining First Stage Advice of CVC. 1. 8 The attested readable Xerox copy of Rule stating whether the recommendations/advices of CVC are of advisory nature OR mandatory and binding on Disciplinary Authority. 1. 9 The attested readable Xerox copy of the First Stage Advice of CVC. 1. 10 Whether in the charges proposed in my case has "vigilance angle" as defined in para 206. 1 or 206. 2 of Vigilance Manual. If it is of the nature of aforesaid Para 206. 1. 9 The attested readable Xerox copy of the First Stage Advice of CVC. 1. 10 Whether in the charges proposed in my case has "vigilance angle" as defined in para 206. 1 or 206. 2 of Vigilance Manual. If it is of the nature of aforesaid Para 206. 2, please give attested readable Xerox Copy of Noting of Files (indicating the No. of files) OR other correspondence complying with the following provisions: "the Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Vigilance Officer should carefully study the case and conclude whether there is reasonable grounds to doubt the integrity of the officer". ( 3. ) THE respondent vide letter dated 10/12/2008 was informed about item No. 1. 8 and 1. 9 as under: "item No. 1. 8: - There is no such of rules available in the concerned file. However as per the CVC. Website cvc. nin. in CVC tenders independent and" impartial advice to the disciplinary and other authorities. Item No. 1. 9:-Certified copy of the First Stage Advice of CVC is attached herewith please. ( 4. ) WHEREAS, for other information it was stated that, the information cannot be given because of the initiation of departmental enquiry. The grant of information would impede the powers of investigation or apprehension on prosecution of offenders, and being the basic documents on which charges were framed, will affect the prosecution. The exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (h) of the act of 2005. ( 5. ) IN the first appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2, he did not get the desired information; therefore, he preferred a second appeal before the Central information Commission, which has since been allowed by the impugned order calling upon the petitioner to give the complete information before 20. 6. 2009. ( 6. ( 5. ) IN the first appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2, he did not get the desired information; therefore, he preferred a second appeal before the Central information Commission, which has since been allowed by the impugned order calling upon the petitioner to give the complete information before 20. 6. 2009. ( 6. ) WHILE challenging the order and not disputing the fact that initiation of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner is on the basis of the investigation report by the Chief Vigilance Officer, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Vigilance officials in Railway establishment are very often called upon to investigate matters of corruption against their superiors and colleagues which often create hostility and if the material collected by the Vigilance cell is allowed to be furnished to the delinquents, then there is a likelihood to victimization, harassment of these Vigilance officials, and therefore, their secrecy and non-disclosure is essential. It is further urged that since the respondent No 2 is subjected to a departmental enquiry on the basis of the investigation report of the Vigilance department, the parting with information would cause prejudice and will adversely affect the Department Enquiry. It is contended that the provisions contained under Section 8 (1) (e) (g) and (h) exempts the petitioner from giving information pertaining to the investigation by the Vigilance Department. ( 7. ) AFTER considering the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner the question which falls for consideration is whether in the back drop of the facts adverted to the petitioner can claim exemption under section 8 (1) of the act of 2005 from disclosure of information regarding the materials forming the basis for issuance of the charge sheet and initiation of a departmental enquiry. ( 8. ) IN service jurisprudence, it is a settled principle of law that, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to ensure the access of the charge sheeted employee, to the documents or the material relied upon in the charge sheet. ( 8. ) IN service jurisprudence, it is a settled principle of law that, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to ensure the access of the charge sheeted employee, to the documents or the material relied upon in the charge sheet. There are however, materials which are taken into consideration during the fact finding enquiry or a vigilance investigation, as in the present case, and such material though form the basis of initiating a departmental enquiry, but may not be relied upon by the department and is held back because a charge can also be established on the basis of "preponderance of probability" and not on the rule of "strict proof. This leaves a vide gap between the reasonable opportunity afforded and actually available to the delinquent. Therefore, if while taking aid of the provisions contained in the Act of 2005, a Government Servant have an access to the material forming basis of the charges and the initiation of departmental enquiry, which he can utilize for his defence, it cannot be presumed that the departmental enquiry gets impeded, as has been contended by the petitioner, while denying the information. ( 9. ) NOW coming to the provisions of the Act of 2005. The object of the Act is to "secure to the citizens access to information under the control of public authorities, order to promote transparency and accountability in the workings of every public authority". ( 10. ) SECTION 2 (f) defines "information" to mean "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force". Whereas the "record" as defined under section 2 (i) includes: (i) any documents, manuscript and file; (ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (iii) any reproduction of image or images; embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); And the right to information under section 2 (j) means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to - (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; Section 8 (1) (e) (g) and (h) whereupon the reliance is placed by the petitioner stipulates:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (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; ( 11. ) THOUGH the expression "fiduciary relationship" as it exist in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 8 is not defined in the Act of 2005 but the same as defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar: Law Lexicon: 1997 Edition means". The relationship between trustee and their cestui que trust" A relationship between the petitioner and the vigilance department, which is not a private Secret Service, but an establishment operating under the Rules, it therefore cannot be said that a fiduciary relationship exist between the vigilance department and other department of the petitioner as would deprive a citizen and more particular an employee, who has been subjected to a departmental enquiry on the basis of Vigilance Departments investigation report; to have an access to the "information" or the "record". The interpretation which the petitioner intends to put to the expression would curtail the operation of the Act, 2005 and would defeat the very purpose and object for which the Act has been brought into existence. It is not the ambiguity but transparency which the Act of 2005 aims at. ( 12. ) FURTHERMORE, no material is brought on record to justify the averments that the disclosures of information sought for would endanger the life or physical safety of any person who have associated with the investigation. And since the investigation report forms the basis of initiation of a departmental enquiry it cannot be presumed that the report was submitted for law enforcement or for the security purposes. Neither is there any chance for impeding of the process of investigation as apprehended, because already a charge sheet has been framed and the departmental enquiry is initiated. ( 13. ) HAVING thus considered, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer any infirmity, rather it is in conformity with the object and the provisions of Act of 2005. ( 14. ) IN result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. However, no costs. Petition dismissed.