Central Information Commission
Giriraj Prasad vs Delhi Fire Services on 26 September, 2023
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DLFSR/A/2022/145814-UM
Mr. Giriraj Prasad
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi Fire Services,
Pio/Nodal Officer, Rti Cell, Gnctd,
Moti Nagar Division, New Delhi-110015
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.09.2023
Date of Decision : 25.09.2023
Date of RTI application 31.05.2022
CPIO's response 04.07.2022
Date of the First Appeal 08.07.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 05.08.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.09.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 3The CPIO, Delhi Fire Services, vide letter dated 04.07.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 05.08.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr Mukesh Verma PIO , Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that some of the co staff members Mr Anil Kumar misbehaved, threatened him on duty, passed derogatory remarks. He informed that the aforesaid acts were done by him with the help of Mr Phool Kumar and Mr Ramesh Kumar. He claimed that it was done when he was on duty and told Mr. Anil Kumar to follow proper dress code. But instead of following the code of conduct, he in response physically threatened the Appellant. The aforesaid incident took place in Kirti Nagar Fire Station. Hence he said he he had sought certain information to get the evidences needed to prove his allegations in the pending inquiry.
The Respondent informed that the said matter is registered and is pending in the SC ST Commission. Further the departmental inquiry is also pending, he said and added that Mr Phool Kumar and Mr Anil Kumar were transferred after 1.5 month of the Complaint made by the Appellant. He said that they have furnished a reply to the Appellant in year 2021 in reply to his previous RTI Application.Page 2 of 3
The Appellant raised the concern that nothing has been provided to him in the current RTI Application and thereby requested the Commission to direct the Respondent authority to furnish complete to him.
The respondent agreed to furnish the same.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the commission directs the CPIO to re-examine the matter and furnish a correct, complete and detailed information to the Appellant, along with the enclosures, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
Further, the Commission advises the CPIO to consider the case of the Appellant in the backdrop of the above facts and take corrective action if required, thus adhering to the law of natural justice.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पजं ीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनाक ं / Date: 25.09.2023 Page 3 of 3