Central Information Commission
Shri Rajpal vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police ... on 16 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00736 dated 28.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rajpal
Respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance)
Facts:
By an application of 16.3.07 Shri Raj Pal of Village Nasirpur Extension New Delhi, applied to the DCP (Vigilance) / PIO Police Bhawan, New Delhi seeking the following:
"It is, therefore, requested to kindly supply the findings of the inquiry conducted by Sh. S. M. Dagar, ACP (Vigilance) and copy of file & note sheets and relevant papers of the inquiry conducted by him. Kindly provide action taken report of competent authority on the inquiry report of ACP (Vigilance)."
To this he received a response from Shri M.R. Gothwal, PIO (Vigilance) Delhi dated 16.4.07, as follows:
"It is submitted that the out come of Vigilance enquiry conducted in year 2002 on your complaint has already been provided to you vide this office letter dated 17.7.2006. The matter was re-examined in this office. During re-examination, it revealed that you had also filed Writ Petition No. 774/03 in the Hon'ble High Court which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2005 with the observation that the petitioner may put forth his plea before trial Court. DCP/SW took action against the IO/HC Manohar Lal by awarding him a Censure. However, a SCN for censure was issued to SI Jasmohinder Singh and after going through the reply submitted by him, the same was filed. On perusal of fresh Vigilance Enquiry report a letter has been sent to Jt. CP/SR for calling the explanation of ACP/DIU for non compliance and DCP/SW has also been asked reasons for the same, as case FIR No. 116/2000 was charge sheeted without identifying all the accused. The copy of Vigilance Enquiry Report cannot be furnished to you as per section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act 2005, as it contained references to peoples, who gave information or have had their depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence. The identities of such citizens who cooperate with the law enforcement authorities needs to be protected as was held by CIC in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. Delhi Police in case File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006."1
Aggrieved Shri Raj Pal moved his first appeal before Shri R.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Commissioner of Police on 27.4.07, upon which Shri R.P. Upadhyaya, Appellate Authority (Vigilance) in his order of 7.5.07 directed as follows:
"From the perusal of records, it is seen that you have been provided the information about the outcome of the vigilance enquiry reports, referred by you and also the action taken on the enquiry reports. PIO/Vigilance has rightly decided that the copy of the vigilance enquiry report cannot be provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, mentioned in the letter of the PIO/Vigilance. There are no fresh grounds in the present appeal to interfere with the orders of PIO/Vigilance."
Shri Raj Pal has then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to kindly give direction to the CPIO to supply the requisite information and help in achieving the objectives of RTI Act 2005 viz. an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to functioning of democracy and also to contain corruption and to hold Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed."
The appeal was heard on 16.10.08. The following are present:
Respondents Shri A.S. Cheema, DCP (Vigilance) Shri Krishan Pal, H.C. Appellant Sh. Rajpal had been informed by Notice dated 8.10.2008 regarding the hearing but he has opted not to be present. DCP (Vigilance) Shri A.S. Cheema submitted that issuing any part of the Enquiry Report will disclose the identities of source of information and, therefore, cannot reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information as mandated u/s 10 (1). Accordingly, we have examined the Enquiry Report on file.
DECISION NOTICE It is true that restriction of Sec. 8(1)(g) will apply in such cases, but the copy of enquiry report can be provided to appellant after deleting the name and 2 identity of witnesses, informer etc., which is already the practice in the police, witness the orders of Jt. Commissioner of Police, Northern Range in the case File CIC/WB/A/2007/00516 However on examining the enquiry report contains in pages I0N to 4-N in the Delhi Police file No. 24(178)/Vigilance/DIG-O6 of the office of JCP-IR New Delhi, we find that although details of the Enquiry conducted have been provided, there is not even a mention of the witnesses examined let alone their recorded statements which have been separately compiled. Under the circumstances, we see no reason for withholding providing this Enquiry Report to appellant Shri Raj Pal in toto, since no part of it will come under the mischief of sec. 8(1)(g). The appeal is, therefore, allowed. A copy of report contained in pages 1-N to 4-N of Note File of File No. 24(178)/Vigilance/DIG-O6 will be provided to appellant Sh. Raj Pal within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.
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 3