Central Information Commission
Kunta Devi vs Mcd on 11 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121825 and
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/125618
Kunta Devi .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Vigilance Department, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, 26th Floor,
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.
PIO,
O/O THE CPIO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF DELHI Vigilance Department, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, 26th Floor,
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2024
Date of Decision : 10.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the subject-
matter is similar in nature and hence are being disposed of through a
common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.02.2023, 12.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2023, 12.04.2023
Page 1 of 15
First appeal filed on : 03.04.2023, 17.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.05.2023, 12.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023, 09.06.2023
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121825
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2023 seeking the following information:
1. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक दिल्ली नगर ननगम सर्तकर्ा विभाग में कुल ककर्ने कमतचाररयों/अधधकाररयों के खिलाफ RDA मामले लम्बिर् है सूची सदहर् जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
2. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक दिल्ली नगर ननगम सर्तकर्ा विभाग में कुल ककर्ने कमतचाररयों/अधधकाररयों के खिलाफ Pending Inquiry के मामले लम्बिर् है सूची सदहर् जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
3. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक दिल्ली नगर ननगम सर्तकर्ा विभाग में ननबनललखिर् अधधकाररयों/कमतचाररयों के मामलो पर कुल ककर्नो के खिलाफ Departmental Inquiry चल रही है । जो ननबननुसार है । कृपया इनके खिलाफ चल रही Departmental Inquiry की जानकारी िे ने की कृपा करें ।
1. श्री इन्द्रजीर् कुमार पुत्र श्री शत्रुघन शमात LDC BM ID No. 10095206 RDA No. 01.05.2017
2. श्री सुरेन्द्र लसिंह श्री हरर लसिंह FWW BM ID No. 1008742 RDA No. 1.05.2017
3. श्री भन्द्र्ु भीम राि पादिल पुत्र श्री भीमराि िािूराम पादिल (अध्यापक) 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. श्री प्रिेश कुमार पुत्र श्री राजिीर लसिंह (िी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. छािला Page 2 of 15 5 श्री अशोक कुमार गुप्र्ा पुत्र श्री मुसाकफर लाल गुप्र्ा (िी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 राजस्थान
6. श्री रामेश्िर ियाल पुत्र श्री 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 फरीिािाि।
7. श्री जगिीश प्रसाि पुत्र श्री 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. केशि पुरम।
8. श्री सोहन लाल पुत्र श्री िज ृ लाल (िेलिार) 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 गािंि
9. श्री नरे श कुमार पुत्र श्री िालककशन (सफाई कमतचारी) पम्श्चमी क्षेत्र SIO (P) Case No. 46/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/SDMC FIR No. 469/2014 U/s 302, 307, 147, 149, IPC P.S. िािा हररिास नगर
10. श्री राम चन्द्िर पुत्र श्री भीम लसिंह (सफाई कमतचारी) पम्श्चमी क्षेत्र SIO (P) Case No. 45/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/SDMC/2015
11. श्री राजिीर पुत्र श्री धन्द्नुराम (िेलिार) 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. फर्ेहपुर िेरी
12. श्री सर्ीश पुत्र श्री रामचरन (सफाई कमतचारी) SIO (P) Case No. 76/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 272/2016 dt. 12.06.2016 U/s 376, 34 IPC
13. श्री निीन्द्र यािि पुत्र श्री राम िहािरु (िी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. श्री उमेश लसिंह (सफाई कमतचारी) BM ID 51200935, SIO(P) Case No. 31/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2014 FIR No. 365/2013 U/s 304 IPC P.S. नन्द्ि नगरी
15. श्री पान लसिंह (िी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. अबिेडकर नगर
16. श्री अरविन्द्ि आजाि (िीचर) पम्श्चमी SIO (P) Case No.क्षेत्र 2334/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2011 FIR No. 57/2011 U/s 365 IPC
17. श्री सजीि पुत्र श्री जय लसिंह (सफाई कमतचारी) 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. सैक्िर-23 द्िारका Page 3 of 15
18. श्री नरे न्द्र पुत्र श्री चरन लसिंह (ड्राईिर) पम्श्चमी क्षेत्र 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. श्री िह ृ म लसिंह पुत्र श्री िािूलाल (सफाई कमतचारी) 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
20. श्री प्रिीप कुमार डागर पुत्र श्री ककशन डागर (सफाई ननरीक्षक) 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. श्री सुिराम मीना (सफाई ननरीक्षक) Case No. CBI No. 400/2019 P.C. Act 1988 Sec. 7 Rouse Avenue District Court
22. श्री मनीश लाल FIR No. 17/2019 P.S. ACB, POC Act 1988 Sec-7
23. श्री नरे न्द्र लसिंह पुत्र श्री सुलर्ान लसिंह (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. श्री फर्ेह चन्द्ि पुत्र श्री मुक्र्ीराम (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. श्री अभीराम झॉ पुत्र श्री कौशर (िेलिार) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 70/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/2016 FIR No. 393/2016 U/s 354/34 IPC P.S. ननहाल विहार
26. श्री सोमित्त पुत्र श्री गोधू (चौधरी) उद्यान विभाग िक्षक्षणी क्षेत्र S.I.O. (P) Case No. 47/S.I.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2015 dated 01.07.2015
27. श्री लालकृष्ण (उफत अडिानी) पुत्र श्री मेिाराम (कैिल 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. श्री विजय जािि (जूननयर इन्द्जीननयर) 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. श्री कमल लसह मीणा पुत्र िरी प्रसाि मीना (A.E.) S.LO. (P) Case No. 9/S.I.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.I./2013
30. श्री ओमप्रकाश पुत्र श्री रामा (िेलिार) मध्य क्षेत्र 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:
Page 4 of 15This 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) (1) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, this is exempted from disclosure.
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 as 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. 872 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 Appeal 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) (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 5 of 15
In view of above, the reply given by the PIO is in order. Accordingly, the appeal is 'disposed' off.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/125618 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2023 seeking the following information:
1. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रिीप श्रीिास्र्ि मुख्य सर्तकर्ा अधधकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधधकारी) सर्तकर्ा विभाग दिल्ली नगर ननगम के आिे श सिंख्या CVO/PC/Vig 2008/5964 दिनािंक 22.12.2009 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे जोकक अपील निं0 124/IN ID No. 2014 पर दिया गया था।
2. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रिीप श्रीिास्र्ि मुख्य सर्तकर्ा अधधकारी (प्रथम अपीलीया अधधकारी) सर्तकर्ा विभाग दिल्ली नगर ननगम के द्िारा अपील निं0 127/IN ID No. 2015 पर दिये गये आिे श सिंख्या CVO/PC/Vig/2008/5827 दिनािंक 15.12.2009 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे
3. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रिीप श्रीिास्र्ि मख् ु य सर्तकर्ा अधधकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधधकारी) सर्तकर्ा विभाग दिल्ली नगर ननगम के द्िारा अपील निं0 126/IN ID No. 2012 पर दिये गये आिे श सिंख्या CVO/PC/Vig/2008/5826 दिनािंक 15.12.2009 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे
4. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रिीप श्रीिास्र्ि मुख्य सर्तकर्ा अधधकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधधकारी) सर्तकर्ा विभाग दिल्ली नगर ननगम के द्िारा अपील निं0 128/IN ID No. 2008 पर दिये गये आिे श सिंख्या CVO/PC/Vig/2008/5825 दिनािंक 15.12.2009 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे
5. कृपया माननीय श्री मनीश गप्ु र्ा आयक् ु र् िक्षक्षणी दिल्ली नगर ननगम द्िारा जारी पत्र सिंख्या D-168/Com/S.D.M.C./2012 दिनािंक 24.07.2012 जोकक श्री महािल लमश्रा सािंसि लोकसभा एििं मेरे प्राथतना पत्र के साथ माननीय ननिे शक सर्तकर्ा विभाग दिल्ली नगर ननगम को आिश्यक Page 6 of 15 कायतिाही हे र्ु प्रेविर् था। कृपया पत्र पर सर्तकर्ा विभाग द्िारा की गई कायतिाही की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
6. कृपया मेरे द्िारा दिनािंक 29.12.2022 एििं दिनािंक 17.02.2023 को माननीय मुख्य सर्तकर्ा अधधकारी, सर्तकर्ा विभाग, दिल्ली नगर ननगम को दिये गये आिेिन पत्रों पर की गई कायतिाही की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
7. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक कायातलय आिे श सिंख्या 1718/SIO/(P)/Vig/2004-R-60 दिनािंक 10.06.2004 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
8. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक कायातलय आिे श सिंख्या 1718/SIO/(P)/Vig/2004-R-115 दिनािंक 27.10.2004 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
9. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक कायातलय आिे श सिंख्या 1718/SIO/(P)/Vig/2004-D-24 दिनािंक 18.05.2007 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
10. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक कायातलय आिे श सिंख्या 1718/SIO/(P)/Vig/2004-S-187 दिनािंक 15.05.2006 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
11. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक कायातलय आिे श सिंख्या 1718/SIO/(P)/Vig/2004-R-177 दिनािंक 09.11.2006 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
12. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक माननीय श्री एन०एम० लसिंह पुललस अधीक्षक सी०िी०आई / भ्रष्िाचार ननरोधक शािा, नई दिल्ली द्िारा माननीय ननिे शक सर्तकर्ा विभाग, दिल्ली नगर ननगम को प्रेविर् पत्र सिंख्या DLI/AC/Cr. R.C.-63 (A) 2003/133 दिनािंक 26.10.2007 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
13. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे कक माननीय जन सच ू ना अधधकारी सर्तकर्ा विभाग दिल्ली नगर ननगम द्िारा माननीय आयुक्र् महोिय केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग को प्रेविर् पत्र सिंख्या Page 7 of 15 PIO/Legal/Vig/SDMC/2014/617 दिनािंक 25.06.2014 की सत्यावपर् छायाप्रनर् उपलब्ध कराने की कृपा करे ।
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.04.2023 stating as under:
In this regard, on perusal of point No.1 to 4 it appears that they are relating to RTI FAA orders relating to year 2009 i.e. for a period relating to more than 12 years old record. It is very difficult to trace the same at this stage since the matter has already been disposed. Moreover, if the same does not relate to your RTI, then the same is restricted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
As regards, point No.5, it is observed that the same relates to the year 2012 I.e. relating to more than 10 years old record. However, the requisite information is being traced and may take few weeks. As such, the information pertaining to this point will be provided after tracing the concerned record.
As regards, point No.6, as per information provided by the APIO (Legal Cell), the matter is under process for taking necessary action. Further, rest of the points, the information is restricted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act-2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.05.2023, held as 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 13 points and PIO, Vigilance Department vide letter No. 980 dated 12.04.2023 informed the applicant that the information sought in query No. 1 to 5 is related to a period more than 10-12 years old record and that it is very difficult to trace the same at this stage. As regards, query No. 6, the appellant was informed that the matter is under process for taking necessary action. For rest of the query, the appellant was informed that the information is covered under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and as such, restricted. However, the PIO is directed to get the record checked once again and provide a revised reply in respect query No. 1 to 5 if the same pertains to this appellant within 30 days of this order. With the above directions, the appeal is 'disposed' off.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 8 of 15
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri A. Karthikeyan, ADOV & PIO and Shri KDS Tomar, JIO & APIO present in person.
The hearing notice sent to the Appellant returned back undelivered with the postal remarks "incomplete address". The hearing notice was sent on the address as given by the Appellant in her second appeal.
Written submissions of the Respondent in file No. CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121825 are taken on record and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"The PIO vide letter No. PIO (Vig.)/RTI ID No.464/MCD/2023/872 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.
It 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 Page 9 of 15 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"
Written submissions of the Respondent in file No. CIC/MCDND/A/2023/125618 are taken on record and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"In this regard, the pointwise submissions are as under:
Point No. 1 to 4:
The appellant through these four points except for mentioning the FAA's order No. relating to the year 2009, has not mentioned the name of the applicant who had preferred the RTI application. If the same is relating to her, the copy of these letters should be with her and if it is relating to some other applicant, it is 3rd party information and covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 However, although the appellant had not mentioned the name of the RTI applicant, all the records available in the Civic Centre Office were searched and no record relating to the above mentioned issue could be traced. It is also pertinent to mention here that earlier the Vigilance Department was functioning from a Building in Civil Line Zone office and was later shifted to Civic Centre in the year 2010. Subsequently, in the year 2012 Municipal Corporation of Delhi was trifurcated as North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Later on again in the year 2022, the Corporation was unified as a single entity i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Upon trifurcation, the files/records were segregated Corporation wise and then again after unification taken in one fold. However, it emerged that the old records which were at the same were old building and which were beyond the retention period/closed/consigned to record were not shifted to the new building i.e. Civic Centre and in fact all such records which were beyond their retention period/closed were gathered and stacked in almirahs and the rooms were locked. As similar issues relating to old records had come up, it was felt necessary to document the old records/weed out. The matter was taken up 03.03.2023 itself and after approval an official with one peon/helper was posted for making a list of such old records. Also a Committee consisting of three Assistant Directors (including the undersigned) and one Superintendent has been formed and the process of weeding out old records is under process. The scrutiny of old records has already been initiated and all the available old records relating to RTI/First Appeals sorted and scrutinized. There are about 1000 files relating to RTI/First appeals etc. which are yet to be scrutinized and may take 4 more weeks to complete. The Page 10 of 15 appellant had not mentioned the name of the applicant with regard to the points 1 to 4, as such, it has become very difficult in locating the files which is very time consuming and the exercise is being carried out apart from the routine work.
However, keeping in view of the spirit of RTI Act, best efforts are being made to locate the concerned files within 4 weeks and thereafter i.e. by 1st week of October, if the RTI application is related to this appellant, then the attested copy of the FAAs order will be provided to the appellant and in case the same pertains to any other person the same being third party information will be denied as it is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 5:
The information sought is relating to very old record/more than 12 years and moreover in view of above submissions, it is very difficult to trace the movement of the reference. However, keeping in view of the spirit of RTI Act, best efforts are being made to locate the same within 4 weeks and thereafter i.e. by 1st week of October, the status/movement of the reference will be provided to the appellant.
Point No. 6: The available record/files have been perused and it was observed that the matter is related to a CBI case No.94/2019 RC-DAI/A0063/2003 CBI VS. Jeet Ram filed against certain employees and the said matter is listed for 13.09.2024 for final arguments. The application/representation dated 29.12.2022 and 17.02.2023 have been traced in the connected files.
That through Point No.6, the appellant had requested for action taken on his representations dated 29.12.2022 and 17.02.2023. The said representations were relating to providing the order of SRC meetings dated 06.07.2022 and 21.10.2022. In this regard, it is informed that the case was put up in the SRC meeting held on the above mentioned dates and that the same was considered and was ordered to continue suspension. It is also informed that no individual/separate orders were issued regarding the same.
Point No. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11:
That through these points, the appellant had requested to provide attested copies of orders relating to the year 2004/2006/2007. In this regard, it is submitted that the information sought is relating to very old record/about 16- 20 years and moreover in view of above submissions, it is very difficult to trace the movement of the reference. The appellant has also not mentioned as to Page 11 of 15 whom the order was issued. If the same is not issued to him, it is 3rd party information and covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, keeping in view of the spirit of RTI Act, best efforts are being made to locate the same within 4 weeks and thereafter i.e. by 1st week of October, if the same relates to the appellant, the same will be provided to him. Further, if the same relates to some other person, it will be denied as the same is covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 12:
That through this point the appellant has sought a letter/ communication of CBI Lr. No. DLI/AC/Cr./RC-63(A) 2003/133 dated 26.10.2007. Since the CBI matter against the officials is pending before CBI court, as such the same cannot be provided by this office at this stage. Moreover, the same the same appears to have been issued by CBI.
Point No. 13:
That through this point, the appellant had requested for attested copy of letter No. PIO/Legal/Vig/SDMC/2014/617 dated 25.06.2014 addressed to Central Information Commissioner. In this regard, it is submitted that the information sought is relating to very old record and in spite of best efforts, the same could not be traced. The appellant has also not mentioned as to who the RTI applicant was. If the same is not issued to him, it is 3rd party information and covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, keeping in view of the spirit of RTI Act, best efforts are being made to locate the same within 4 weeks and thereafter i.e. by 1st week of October, if the same relates to the appellant, the same will be provided to him.
Further, if the same relates to some other person, it will be denied as the same is covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005"
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.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted w.r.t file No. CIC/MCDCD/A/2023/125618 that if the information sought on point Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 11 and 13 of the RTI application pertains specifically to the Appellant then the same can be provided to her. For this purpose, the Respondent seeks Page 12 of 15 some time to search the relevant records in their previous office/building, record being old in nature.
Decision:
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121825:
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 letter dated 27.03.2023.
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 with the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/125618:
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 12.04.2023 and 12.05.2023.
Now at the stage of appeal, the Respondent has submitted his revised comments on the RTI application of the Appellant. The Respondent further requested the Commission that if the information sought on point Nos. 1 to 4, 7 to 11 and 13 of the RTI application specifically pertains to the Appellant then the same can be provided to her. For this purpose, the Respondent seeks some Page 13 of 15 time to search the relevant records in their previous office/building, being old in nature.
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 with the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The Respondent is further directed to search the relevant records in their office with respect to information sought on point Nos. 1 to 4, 7 to 11 and 13 of the RTI application and if the same pertains to the Appellant, then complete information should be provided to her, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the information sought pertains to third party information, then specific reply in this regard should be provided to the Appellant.
With respect to other points of the RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 14 of 15 Copy To:
The FAA, Director(Vigilance) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 26th Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.
The FAA, Director(Vigilance) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 26th Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.Page 15 of 15
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)