Central Information Commission
Rajiv Verma vs Delhi Police on 3 April, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/144208 &
CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/144892
Rajiv Verma ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Addl Dy. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police, South East Dist., New
Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.02.2017 FA : 28.04.2017 SA : 29.06.2017
CPIO : No reply FAO : No order Hearing : 02.04.2019
ORDER
1. Shri Rajiv Verma filed two appeals in case Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/144208 & CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/144892 in respect of an RTI application dated 13.02.2017. Both the appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order.
Page 1 of 42. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East Dist., New Delhi seeking information on three points pertaining to his complaint dated 08.10.2016 against Shri Ajay Katwa, Sub-Inspector and Shri Sanjay Singh, Constable, including, inter-alia,
(i) whether any Vigilance Action Committee under the supervision of Shri Rajinder, Sub-Inspector (Vigilance) was constituted on his above said complaint and (ii) a copy of the action taken/enquiry report of the said committee.
3. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not provided any information to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for to him, free of cost.
Hearing:
4. The appellant Shri Rajiv Verma and the respondent Shri Satish Rana, Inspector, Delhi Police, Delhi were present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that he has not received any reply to the RTI application, from the CPIO so far.
6. The respondent submitted that in response to the RTI application a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 16.03.2017. The said reply was sent to the appellant by speed post on 18.03.2017. The appellant, vide the above said letter, was requested to collect a copy of the enquiry report (six pages) from the office after depositing the requisite fee as per the provisions of the RTI Act. As the appellant had not obtained the requisite documents, the FAA vide order dated Page 2 of 4 23.05.2017 provided a copy of the above said enquiry report along with a copy of CPIO's reply, to the appellant. The respondent handed over a copy of the reply dated 16.03.2017 along with a copy of the enquiry report, to the appellant during the hearing itself.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent during the hearing. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, both appeals are disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 03.04.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East Dist., Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, South East Dist., Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076
3. Shri Rajiv Verma Page 4 of 4