Central Information Commission
Mrsat Pal vs Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 9 December, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/000246/SB
Dated 14.12.2015
Appellant : Shri Satpal,
DIG, N.E., FTR HQ, I.T.B.P.,
Old Ap, Govt. Secretariat,
Meghalaya, Shillong - 793 001
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate General, I.T.B.P.,
Block No.02, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi110003.
Date of Hearing : 10.11.2015/09.12.2015
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.08.2013
CPIO replied on : 06.08.2013
First Appeal filed on : 23.08.2013
FAA's Order on : 13.09.2013
Second Appeal dated : 03.02.2014
ORDER
1
1. Shri Satpal filed an application dated 22.08.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), I.T.B.P., seeking information/documents on eleven points pertaining to a case registered by CBI under Prevention of Corruption Act, including (i) copies of note sheets of all relevant files placing him under suspension during 2011 and (ii) copies of note sheets processing/recommendation for prosecution sanction of competent authority against him after receipt of charge sheet from CBI, etc.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 03.02.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO whereby information was denied under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has requested the Commission to issue directions to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the CPIO to provide the requested information and necessary action be taken as admissible under the RTI Act for denial of information.
3. During the hearing held on 10.11.2015, the appellant Shri Satpal was present in person. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him in response to his RTI application dated 22.08.2013 on the ground that ITBP has been put at Second Schedule to the Right of Information Act, 2005. Hence, as per provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act, ITBP is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. However, the appellant submitted that the matter relates allegations of corruption in ITBP. Hence, as per proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, information sought by him should be provided.
5. The Commission took a serious view of the absence of the CPIO despite notice. The Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining 2 his absence, along with the comments of First Appellate Authority, before 06.12.2015 both by post and through email at do.icsb[email protected].
6. The Commission observes that under Section 24(1) r/w Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005, ITBP has been declared an exempt organization. Hence, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the CBI except when the information pertains to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. In view of this, it is necessary to ascertain whether the matter pertains to allegations of corruption against officers of ITBP as submitted by the appellant during the hearing. The appellant is, therefore, directed to send copy(ies) of documents in this regard so as to reach the Commission before 27.11.2015. The matter is adjourned to 09.12.2015 at 11:00 am.
Hearing on 09.12.2015
7. The appellant Shri Satpal was present in person. The respondent ITBP was not present despite notice.
8. The appellant submitted that a criminal case has been registered against him by the CBI under Section 7, 8 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant further submitted that the FIR no. RC0072011A0006 dated 12.05.2011 filed with CBI, SPE, Dehradun states that all the Members of the Board (of which the appellant was the Presiding Officer) constituted for conducting the Head Constable recruitment Examination were involved in a criminal conspiracy, had abused their official position, cheated ITBP and obtained illegal gratification. Thus, there are allegations of corruption against Shri Satpal, the appellant, an employee of ITBP. Hence, under proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act furnishing of information shall not be exempted under Section 24(1) of The RTI Act. 3 Decision:
9. The CPIO, ITBP was not present despite notice during the hearing held on 10.11.2015. Consequently, the CPIO was directed to submit a written statement before the Commission explaining his absence. The CPIO was again not present during the hearing held on 09.12.2015. The Commission directs the First Appellate Authority, ITBP to obtain the explanation of the CPIO for his absence from the hearings and submit the same before the Commission, prior to 15.01.2015 both by post and through email at do.icsb[email protected]
10. The Commission heard the submissions of the appellant and perused the records. The Commission observes that the appellant allegedly indulged in corrupt practices while serving in ITBP. Hence, the matter relates to allegations of corruption within the ITBP.
11. The proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act reads as 'Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this subsection:'. Thus, in this matter ITBP cannot claim exemption under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, ITBP to provide the information sought by the appellant, as per provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
12. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy 4 (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 5