Central Information Commission
Balbir Singh Meena vs Delhi Police on 15 February, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000176
Dated: 10.02.2017
Appellant : Shri Balbir Singh Meena
H. No. 220, PH II, Pkt. I
Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Respondents : The Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o ADCP cum CPIO
South West District
Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi.
The Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, O/o the DCP,
Police Control Room, PCR,
Model Town - II, Delhi-110 009
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.07.2015
CPIO' reply : 24.08.2015/30.09.2015
First appeal filed on : 18.11.2015
FAA's Order : 30.11.2015
Second Appeal filed on : 06.01.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Balbir Singh Meena filed an application dated 28.07.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), South West District, Delhi Police seeking information on four points including (i) action taken on the Disciplinary Enquiry (DE) initiated against Shri Yadram Meena, ASI, Delhi Police, (ii) status regarding the regular D.E. to be initiated against Shri Rakesh Singh Thakur, Head Constable, Delhi Police for involvement in a criminal case, (iii) action taken against Shri Rakesh Singh Thakur, Head Constable, Delhi Police and (iv) action taken on the appellant's complaint.
2. Shri Balbir Singh Meena filed a second appeal dated 06.01.2016 before the Commission on the grounds that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO and that the FAA wrongly upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant stated that the CPIO did not act as per the guidelines and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 and requested the Commission to take disciplinary action against the CPIO for saving the accused H.C. Rakesh Singh.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Balbir Singh Meena and the respondents Shri O.P. Singh, ACP, South West District (SWD), Delhi Police, Shri Sanjeev Tomar, ACP, PCR, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO, PCR, Delhi Police has wrongly denied information on point nos. 1 to 4 of his RTI application on the grounds that the information sought relates to personal information of a third party and hence, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that his RTI application, with respect to point no. 5 of the RTI application, was transferred to the CPIO, SWD, Delhi Police. However, no information on the same has been provided to him by the CPIO, SWD, Delhi Police.
5. The respondent (SWD, Delhi Police) submitted that the information as per available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.08.2015. The respondent further submitted that the RTI application was forwarded to CPIO, PCR under intimation to the appellant as point nos. 1, 3 to 5 of the RTI application were related to the PCR Unit Model Town, Delhi. Hence, no further action on part of CPIO, SWD, Delhi Police is pending.
6. The respondent (PCR, Delhi Police) in respect of point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 30.09.2015, that the information sought relates to personal information of third party and hence is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent in respect of point no. 5 of the RTI application submitted that complaint against Shri Rakesh Singh Thakur, Head Constable was sent to DCP, South West District, Delhi Police on 19.05.2015. The respondent submitted that Shri Rakesh, Head Constable, Delhi Police had been transferred from PCR to South District, Delhi Police and thereafter, he was further transferred to West District, Delhi Police.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application relates to the action taken in the DE which is a personal information of the third party. The Commission further observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 03.10.2012 in the case of Shri Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others, SLP (C) no. 27734 of 2012 had observed that disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this matter, the Commission observes that no public interest would be served by the disclosure of the information. Hence, information sought on point no.1 of the RTI application cannot be provided to the appellant. The Commission with regard to point nos. 3 of the RTI application observes that the information sought is in the nature of query which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence, it cannot be answered under the RTI Act. The Commission, with regard to point no. 4 of the RTI application, observes that the appellant seeks to know the details of the officers who have dealt the DE case. However, the same cannot be provided to the appellant as it would pose a threat to the safety and security of the officers concerned. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held that:-
"6.........In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to........... Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties.
8. In view of the above ratio, the information sought in point no. 4 of the RTI application cannot be authorized to be disclosed as it would amount to information confidentially held by the Public Authority. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
9. The Commission, further observes that information sought on point nos. 2 of the RTI application relates to whether any DE was initiated on the basis of the appellant's application. However, merely informing the appellant as to whether a DE was initiated without disclosing any further details would neither pose a threat to the safety of the officers who have dealt the DE case nor would it impede the process of the DE. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO, West District, Delhi Police to inform the appellant about the status of DE and if no DE was initiated then the action taken on the appellant's application as sought in point no. 5 of the RTI application be informed to him, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Shri Sanjeev Tomar, ACP, PCR, Delhi Police will ensure that a copy of this order be served upon the CPIO, West District, Delhi Police.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer