Central Information Commission
Randhir Singh Saharan vs Delhi Police on 11 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/111471
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2018
Date of Decision : 04.07.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Randhir Singh Saharan
Respondent : 1.PIO/Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Vigilance Cell-Delhi, 6th Floor, Police
Station Building
2. PIO/Nodal Officer-(RTI)/
Establishment, O/o. the Dy.
Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police HQ
3. PIO/ Dy. Commissioner of
Police/HQ., Delhi Police
Headquarters
Through: Sh. V K Nayyar-ACP; Ms.
Meena Naidu-APIO; Sh. N S Minhas
-APIO; Sh. Ramavtar Yadav-ASI; Sh.
Ombir Sain-ASI
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.03.2016
CPIO replied on : 24.04.2016
First Appeal filed on : 07.06.2016
First Appellate Order on : 20.06.2016
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.02.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 31.03.2016, the appellant sought information which was responded by the PIO, Dy. Commissioner of Police HDQRS, New Delhi Vide letter dated 26.04.2016:-
S. I. Information Asked Information Furnished Nos.
1. Complaint given by Sh. Yogender In this regard, we are unable to Prasad to Commissioner of Police provide the movement of complaint Delhi vide No. 9654 Dt. 16.11.2011 in r/o Shri Yogender Prasad vide and relevant papers of inquiry Dy. No. 9654 dated 16.11.2011, as conducted on it. the diary No. referred above does not exist in the office of CP, Delhi.
2. Complaint given by Sh. Yogender The requisite reply will be provided Prasad to Special Commissioner of to appellant by PIO/Vigilance, New Police Vigilance in March 2011 and Delhi, where appellant's RTI relevant papers of inquiry conducted application has already been on it. transferred for sending a reply directly to appellant, under RTI Act-
2005.
3. Action taken report on complaint Complaint was received in the given by the applicant against SI office of Jt. CP/HQ vide Dy. No. Jagdish Prasad to Joint C.P. (HQ) 3718 dated 20.04.2015 and further Delhi vide No. 3718 dt. 20.04.2015. marked/sent to DCP/Establishment vide No.
1. 2531/Jt.CP/HQ dated 20.04.2015 for taking necessary action.
Accordingly, RTI application is being transferred to PIO/Establishment for sending a reply directly applicant, under RTI Act-2005.
PIO-cum- Dy. Commissioner of Police Vigilance, Delhi vide letter dated 05.05.2016 has provided point wise information to the appellant:-
Point No. 1:- In this regard, the case FIR No. 43/2011 dated 03.02.2011, U/S 325/34 IPC PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi registered against appellant, is pending trial in the Hon'ble Court and the matter is sub-judice. As such, the requisite documents cannot be provided at this stage in view of Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act-2005.
Point No. 2:- The complaint of Sh. Yoginder Prasad, which was received in this office on 03.03.2011, has already been sent to the DCP/West District, New Delhi for taking further necessary action at his end, vide this office memo. No. 6835/HA_SR/Vigilance dated 09.03.2011. As such appellant's RTI application is being transferred to the PIO/West District, New Delhi for providing the requisite information directly within the stipulated period under RTI Act-2005.
Point No. 3:- The information relates ot DCP/Establishment, Delhi and appellant's RTI application has already been transferred to PIO/Establishment, Delhi.
Another reply by Dr. Ashok Malik, CPIO-cum-Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi vide letter dated 02.06.2016 stated as follows:-
Point No. 1:- In this regard, the reply has been provided by PIO/Vigilance, New Delhi's letter dated 05.05.2016. Which is self- contained.
Point No. 2:- The old record of Complaint Branch (i.e complaint cases and its connected registers upto 31.12.2012) has been destroyed vide No. 1598-1632/Compt.(West) District/(DA-VI) dt. 03.02.2016 (copy enclosed). Hence, the requisite information cannot be provided at this stage.
Point No. 3:- As mentioned at point '1' above.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 07.06.2016. Shri David Lalrinsanga, Joint Commissioner of Police-cum-FAA, Vigilance, Delhi vide order dated 20.06.2016 upheld the reply of the PIO vide their letter dated 05.05.2016.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and their deliberations reveal that the appellant and Sh. Yoginder Prasad, both employed in the police force had got involved into some dispute pertaining to monetary transactions. The dispute led to filing of an FIR by Sh. Yogender Prasad against the appellant invoking Section 325 IPC. Subsequently, Sh. Yogender Prasad had filed complaint even against the IO dealing with the case, raising his objections to the Investigation carried out. The FIR against the appellant had culminated into a Court case and is still pending, much to the agony of the appellant, who is about to retire shortly.
The appellant states that he has procured documents to substantiate his case, in the form of a report certifying that the MLC report on the basis of which the FIR was lodged, was itself false and erroneous. The Doctor who had issued the MLC Report has also been proceeded against by the Medical Council of India.
The Respondent present in the case states that since the matter has reached and is pending in the Court, it has gone outside the purview of the police department. Since the Court case has not proceeded much, hence, the Respondents had assumed that the case is closed by now. Decision Upon hearing the averments of the appellant and perusal of documents, the Commission notes that the aim and object of the RTI Act is not merely to elicit just a response. The purport and legislative intent behind this sunshine legislation is to assist citizens and arm them with the power of information. Information, which is not mechanical, mundane, administrative movement of files, but information which is empowering, enabling and which helps the citizens to procure justice for themselves.
The facts of the case at hand demonstrate how on the basis of a alleged false and frivolous complaint, the appellant has been subjected to suffer for so long. The Appellant though a part of the same department as the Respondent, has undergone the rigors of many rounds of litigation.
At the concern expressed by the Commission, the Respondent stated that the appellant should submit the necessary documents before them so that supplementary information/papers can be presented to the court. The Appellant is advised to submit the documents indicating the flawed MLC Report and the action initiated by the MCI against the errant doctor, before the DCP(West) within a week from the receipt of this order. The Respondent shall take expeditious action in resolving the matter and submit an Action Taken Report by 10.08.2018.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(R.P.Grover) Designated Officer