Central Information Commission
Shri Sunil Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ... on 16 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00715 dated 15.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Sunil Kumar
Respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic)
Facts:
By an application of 23.11.06, received in the Office of DCP (Traffic) on 23.12.06, Shri Sunil Kumar of Malikpur Delhi sought the following information:
"I want to know that why and how I have been dismissed under Rule 5(1) of C.S.S., when it is not applicable in my case. Please provide the information because it is question of future of appellant."
To this he received a reply on 15.1.07 from the DCP (Traffic) as follows:
"While filling the recruitment form you have written 'No' in reply to 325/24 IPC PS Model Town and have hidden the fact, which was later on substituted with 'Yes' by an Officer of any office. Besides, while applying you had given Permanent & Temporary address as N-11, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi whereas in verification form you had recorded it as House No. 383, Gali No. 8, Sant Nagar, New Delhi as temporary and V&PO Jarara, PS Surir, Distt. Mathura (U.P.) as Permanent address. For this reason, your services were terminated under sub Rule 5, C.C.S. (Temp. Service) Rules, 1965. "
In the meantime appellant had already moved his first appeal on 5.1.07 before the Police Commissioner, Police Headquarters upon which Shri M.S. Upadhyaya Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) and First Appellate Authority, after examining the case in detail, directed as follows:
"As far as complaint of not providing him the requisite information to the appellant in the stipulated time period under RTI Act 2005 is concerned, I have examined the issue and found that the application submitted by Shri Sunil Kumar in Police Headquarters was received in the office of PIO/ Traffic from the office of DCP/IV Bn. DAP on 22.12.2006 vide Memo No. 21/APIO/AP/IV Bn. DAP dated 20.12.2006. The requisite information related to his termination from the service was sent to the applicant vide letter 1 No. 248/Complt. Br. Traffic dated 15.1.2007 by PIO/ Traffic which is within the time limit as given in sub-section (1) of section 7 of Right to Information Act-2005. As the application of the appellant was received by PIO/Traffic on 20.12.2006 and the requisite information was sent to him on 15.1.2007 i.e. within 30 days of the receipt of application, the contention of the appellant that the officials concerned did not provide him the requisite information is not true.
Since the requisite information sought by the appellant has been provided to him by PIO/ Traffic, no further action is required to be taken by the undersigned being the appellate authority and hence, the appeal is not accepted."
Appellant has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"(a) pass order directing the concerned officials i.e. the respondents to perform their duties diligently and to provide the information sought for by the appellant, at the earliest possible;
(b) impose penalty upon the erring/ guilty officials as provided under the relevant provisions of law so that in future no official could date to shirk from his duties;
(c) provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant to explain his case in person;
(d) any other or further relief (s) which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of the appellant and against the respondents."
The appeal was heard on 16.10.08. The following are present:
Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar Shri Inderjit Singh Respondents Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) HQ Delhi - PIO Shri Mukesh Chander, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic),Delhil;1st appellate authority.
Shri Inderjit Singh, assisting appellant, submitted a copy of a letter received from DCP (Traffic) on 23.2.07 in which the entries to Col. 11A & B are as follows:2
a) Have you ever been prosecuted? Remained under House Arrest or had furnished any bond or fined or have been declared as defaulter or you have been deprived from appearing in any exam by any Public Service Commission or declared unfit for any service ?
Yes - case file No. 339/93 u/s 325/34 IPC.
b) Is any case pending in any Court of Law at the time of filling of this form? If answer is yes, then provide details of Prosecution, house arrest, arrest, fine, penalty for default etc. Yes - as above. "
He, therefore, stated that the information, on the basis on which he was dismissed, is incorrect.
DECISION NOTICE Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar has in his application clearly sought to know the grounds for his dismissal, which have been provided to him. Whether these are justifiable grounds or not is not for this Commission to decide, nor does it merit processing of his application under the RTI Act 2005. This is an issue falling squarely within the jurisdiction of CAT. The contention of appellant that the information provided to him was incorrect or misleading is also not justified because he has asked for grounds of his dismissal, which have been disclosed to him. Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar has also been provided with a copy of his application form in the possession of the concerned public authority. If he feels that the allegation of tampering with his form is unjustified remedy will lie elsewhere, since this Commission has jurisdiction only to enforce providing information as held by or under the control of a public authority, which in this case has been provided.3
Respondents inform us that this matter had been decided by CAT as well as by the High Court. If appellant feels, therefore, that CAT has come to its conclusion on the basis of forged documents, he is free to agitate the matter before that authority. This is not an issue meriting interference by this Commission. The appeal is, therefore, unsustainable and is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 16.10.2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 16.10.2008 4