Central Information Commission
Nirmala Devi vs Mcd on 13 September, 2024
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121842
Nirmala Devi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
MCD, Vigilance Department, 2th Floor,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg,
Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002. ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2024
Date of Decision : 13.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 03.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 8
1. कृपया जानकार उपल ध कराने क कृपा करे क द ल नगर नगम सतकता वभाग म कुल कतने कमचा रय /अ धका रय के खलाफ RDA मामले लि बत है सूची स हत जानकार उपल ध कराने क कृपा करे ।
2. कृपया जानकार उपल ध कराने क कृपा करे क द ल नगर नगम सतकता वभाग म कुल कतने कमचा रय /अ धका रय के खलाफ Pending Inquiry के मामले लि बत है सूची स हत जानकार उपल ध कराने क कृपा करे ।
3. कृपया जानकार उपल ध कराने क कृपा करे क द ल नगर नगम सतकता वभाग म न न ल खत अ धका रय /कमचा रय के मामलो पर कुल कतनो के खलाफ Departmental Inquiry चल रह है । जो न ननुसार है। कृपया इनके खलाफ चल रह Departmental Inquiry क जानकार दे ने क कृपा कर।
1. ी इ जीत कुमार पु ी श ुघन शमा LDC BM ID No. 10095206 RDA No. 01.05.2017
2. ी सुरे संह ी हर संह FWW BM ID No. 1008742 RDA No. 1.05.2017
3. ी भ तु भीम राव पा टल पु ी भीमराव बाबूराम पा टल (अ यापक) SIO(P) Case No. 89/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 0271/2017 dated 01.04.2017 U/s 379/411-IPC and 147 Indian Railway Act, P.S., New Delhi Railway Station.
4. ी वेश कुमार पु ी राजवीर संह (ट चर) SIO (P) Case No. 90/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 0388/2017 dated 06.09.2017 U/s 12, POCSCO Act, P.S. छावला 5 ी अशोक कुमार गु ता पु ी मुसा फर लाल गु ता (ट चर) SIO(P) Case No. 92/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 19/2017, U/s 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. SOG - जयपुर राज थान
6. ी रामे वर दयाल पु ी रामजीलाल (PHI) SIO(P) Case No. 93/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2018 FIR No. 90/2017 dated 23.06.2017 U/s 298, 147, 149, 323, 341, 114, 307, 202, 34 IPC P.S. G.R.P फर दाबाद।
7. ी जगद श साद पु ी सोहन लाल (FW) SIO(P) Case No. 91/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 0657/2017 dated 24.10.2017 U/s 498A, 323, 341, 354 (B) 506, 34 IPC P.S. केशव पुरम।Page 2 of 8
8. ी सोहन लाल पु ी वज ृ लाल (वेलदार) SIO (P) Case No. 61/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2016/SDMC/2017 FIR No. 50/2016 dated 03.03.2016 U/s 4 r/w 18 POCSCO Act P.S. पालम गांव
9. ी नरे श कुमार पु ी वाल कशन (सफाई कमचार ) पि चमी SIO े (P) Case No. 46/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/SDMC FIR No. 469/2014 U/s 302, 307, 147, 149, IPC P.S. बाबा ह रदास नगर
10. ी राम च दर पु ी भीम संह (सफाई कमचार ) पि चमी े SIO (P) Case No. 45/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/SDMC/2015
11. ी राजवीर पु ी ध नुराम (वेलदार) SIO (P) Case No. 75/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 145/2015 U/s 452, 308, 195A/34 IPC dt.
06.03.2015 P.S. फतेहपुर बेर
12. ी सतीश पु ी रामचरन (सफाई कमचार ) SIO (P) Case No. 76/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 272/2016 dt. 12.06.2016 U/s 376, 34 IPC
13. ी नवी यादव पु ी राम बहादरु (ट चर) SIO (P) Case No. 48/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2015 FIR No. 560/2017 dt. 28.07.2014 U/s 302 IPS P.S. रनहौला
14. ी उमेश संह (सफाई कमचार ) BM ID 51200935, SIO(P) Case No. 31/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2014 FIR No. 365/2013 U/s 304 IPC P.S. न द नगर
15. ी पान संह (ट चर) SIO (P) Case No. 2403/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2012/SDMC FIR No. 257/2012 U/s 304-B/498-A/34 IPC P.S. अ बेडकर नगर
16. ी अर व द आजाद (ट चर) पि चमी े SIO (P) Case No. 2334/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2011 FIR No. 57/2011 U/s 365 IPC
17. ी सजीव पु ी जय संह (सफाई कमचार ) SIO (P) Case No. 72/Vig/ PC/2017/SDMC/06 dt. 03.4.2017 FIR No. 140/2016 dt. 08.05.2016 U/s 392/411/34 IPC P.S. सै टर-23 वारका
18. ी नरे पु ी चरन संह ( ाईवर) पि चमी े SIO(P) Case No. 60/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/PC/2016/SDMC FIR No. 238/2014 dt 24.02.2014 U/s 302/IPC P.S. नरे ला
19. ी वह ृ म संह पु ी बाबूलाल (सफाई कमचार ) SIO (P) Case No. 83/S.I.O./(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 1089/2015 dt 31.07.2015 U/s 376 IPC & 6 POCSO Act Page 3 of 8
20. ी द प कुमार डागर पु ी कशन डागर (सफाई नर क) SIO(P) Case No. 87/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.1./2017/SDMC FIR No. RC DAI-2017-A- 0028 dt. 20.07.2017 U/s 7 and 13 (2) r/w-13 (1) of P.C. Act.
21. ी सुखराम मीना (सफाई नर क) Case No. CBI No. 400/2019 P.C. Act 1988 Sec. 7 Rouse Avenue District Court
22. ी मनीश लाल FIR No. 17/2019 P.S. ACB, POC Act 1988 Sec-7
23. ी नरे संह पु ी सुलतान संह (HC/ZI) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 71/S.LO./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2017 FIR No. RC-DAI-2017-A-003 U/s 7 of POC Act
24. ी फतेह च द पु ी मु तीराम (PHI/VI) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 80/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./SDMC/2017 FIR No. RC-DAI-2017-A-0018 U/s 7&13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) PC Act and 120B IPC
25. ी अभीराम झॉ पु ी कौशर (वेलदार) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 70/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/2016 FIR No. 393/2016 U/s 354/34 IPC P.S. नहाल वहार
26. ी सोमद पु ी गोधू (चौधर ) उ यान वभाग द णी े S.I.O. (P) Case No. 47/S.I.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2015 dated 01.07.2015
27. ी लालकृ ण (उफ अडवानी) पु ी मेवाराम (कैटल कैचर) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 034/S.I.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2014/SDMC FIR No. R.C.-DAI- 2014-A- 0020 dt. 24.06.2014 U/s 07/CBI/ACB
28. ी वजय जादव (जू नयर इ जी नयर) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 30/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2014/SDMC FIR No. R.C.-DAI-2014-A-0012 U/s 8 of PC Act 1988
29. ी कमल सह मीणा पु व साद मीना (A.E.) S.LO. (P) Case No. 9/S.I.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2013
30. ी ओम काश पु ी रामा (वेलदार) म य े S.I.O. (P) Case No. 50/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/ACB/2015 The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.03.2023 stating as under:
This is with reference to your RTI application dated 26.02.2023 received in Vigilance Department on 02.03.2023. In this regard, in respect of point No. 01, 02 & 03, as per information received from Legal Cell/concerned unit the information sought falls under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, this is exempted from disclosure.Page 4 of 8
Further, it is observed that the query is not relating to any specific record and it appears that the applicant is desiring the P10 to go through all the records and gather/sort information from the files. Such compiled information is not available with the PIO. To segregate such information especially when no specific time period has been mentioned, is cumbersome process and will disproportionately divert manpower and resources of the Public Authority merits consideration as the RTI application appears to be roving/fishing enquiry. Moreover, in cases where the investigation/inquiry proceeding is under process and where the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation, the same are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h), of RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 03.05.2023, held a under.
The concerned RTI file has been called for from the PIO and the documents available in the file have been perused. It is observed that the appellant had sought information on 32 issues and PIO, Vigilance Department vide letter No. 869 dated 27.03.2023 informed the applicant that the information sought by him is covered under 8 (1) (j) and 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
As regard, question No. 01 & 02, it is observed that the applicant has sought information with regard to pending/ongoing disciplinary proceeding. In cases where the investigation/inquiry processing is under process and where the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation, the same are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h), of RTI Act, 2005.
Further, as regards, question No. 3 (1) to 3 (30), it is observed that the applicant has sought information in respect of SIO(P) case/disciplinary proceedings of various employees. Such, information in respect of municipal employees, falls under the category of personal information as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeai No. 10045/2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683/2010 titled CPIO/Supreme Court of India V/s Satish Chander Aggarwal. As such, they are covered under 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In view of above, the reply given by the PIO is in order. Accordingly, the appeal is 'disposed' off.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 5 of 8
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri A. Karthikeyan, ADOV & PIO and Shri KDS Tomar, JIO & APIO present in person.
The husband of the Appellant vide letter dated 05.09.2024 informed the Commission that the Appellant Smt. Nirmala Devi has expired on 17.07.2023.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Kindly refer to the above cited subject and reference. In this regard the written submission is as under:
That in the instant matter the appellant through his RTI application had sought certain information, the gist of which is as under:
1. To provide list of total pending RDA cases.
2. To provide list of total pending Inquiry cases and
3. Status of Departmental inquiry in respect of 30 employees.
The PIO vide letter No. PIO (Vig.)/RTI ID No.461/MCD/2023/869 dated 27.03.2023 informed the applicant that such compiled information is not available with the PIO and that to segregate such information is cumbersome process and will disproportionately divert manpower and resources of the Public Authority. It was also informed that in cases where the investigation/inquiry proceeding is under process and where the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation, the same are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
That not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed First Appeal before FAA, Vigilance Department. The FAA, after going through the facts vide his order dated 03.05.2023, observed in respect of Point No. 1 & 2, that in cases where the investigation/inquiry process is under process and where disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation, the same are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further as regards Point No. 3, it was observed that the information sought falls under the category of personal/information as per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10045/2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683/2010 titled CPIO/Supreme Court of India Vs Satish Chander Aggarwal. They are covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As such, the reply provided by the PIO is in order.
Page 6 of 8It is also pertinent to mention here that the Central Information Commission while deciding the case of Sh. Manoj Arya Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat (File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058) has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande Vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) No.27734/2012) has held under:
"The performance of an employee/Officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual."
In view of above submission, the present RTI Appeal may kindly be disposed of by the Commission please."
The Respondent submitted that complete point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Now, at the stage of second appeal, they have placed on record their revised comments on the RTI applications of the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant as per her RTI application vide letters dated 27.03.2023 and 03.05.2023.
Now at the stage of appeal, the Respondent has submitted his revised comments on the RTI application of the Appellant.
Further, the said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as a revised reply to the instant RTI application which was not yet shared with the Appellant. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to share their written submissions on the address of the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, the Appellant is now deceased.
Page 7 of 8In view of the above, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, MCD, Vigilance Department, 2th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002.Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)