Central Information Commission
Devender Nahar vs Delhi Police on 2 February, 2022
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/669745
CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/623406
Shri Devender Nahar ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi Police, South District ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Head Constable Rohtash Singh
Date of Hearing : 02.02.2022
Date of Decision : 02.02.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on dated
669745 14.08.2019 09.09.2019 02.10.2019 05.11.2019 05.05.2020
623406 06.03.2020 31.03.2020 03.05.2020 09.06.2020 31.05.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/669745 The Appellant has referred to multiple RTI applications with the Second Appeal, in the following manner:
Reference:
1. RTI Application dated 22.04.2019 vide no. DEPOL/A/2019/60570: Information suppressed and false information provided by PIO
2. RTI First Appeal dated 16.06.2019: Incomplete and misleading information provided BY CPIO
3. RTI application date 14.08.2019 vide no. DEPOL/R/2019/54707: Deliberate false statements made by PIO on record
4. Inspection visit to PS Defence Colony on 14.09.2019 and visit to HAC Brach on 26.09.2019: Relevant File and documents not-provided at either place as told by PIO (copy enclosed as Annexure-I AND Annexure-
II) Page 1 of 11
5. RTI First Appeal dated 02.10.2019 vide regn no. DEPOL/A/2019/61018 to seek the information The first online RTI application dated 22.04.2019 referred to Dy. No. 11A dated 30.12.2018 submitted at PS Lodhi Colony and Dy. No. 32B dated 04.01.2019 submitted at PS Defence Colony and sought the following information:
1. The forwarding letter, the brief and all enclosures/documents sent for legal opinion to the prosecution branch to learned APP Mr. Santosh Kumar on the above complaints.
2. The legal opinion alongwith all supporting documents and enclosures received from the learned APP/prosecution branch.
3. Any other documents connected with the above reference or legal opinion.
This had been responded by the ADCP, South District vide reply dated 21.05.2019 as follows:
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a first appeal dated 16.06.2019. The FAA/DCP, Hauz Khas, South District vide order dated 18.07.2019 stated as under:-
Subsequently, he filed another online RTI application dated 14.08.2019 seeking the following information with respect to the reply received from DCP (South)- cum-First Appellate Authority vide Appeal ID-157/RTI Cell/A(19)SD 1783 dated 18.07.2019:-
1. Whether the complaint of the Applicant dated 30.12.2018 vide DD NO. 11A (forwarded to PS Defence Colony) was sent to the Prosecution Branch for seeking legal opinion.Page 2 of 11
2. In the Note dated 04.02.2019 signed by PSI Dushyant Panwar, a mention is made of three Enclosures namely:
a. Copy of Complaint, 03 pp b. Copy of FIR, 02 pp c. Copy of FIR & Copy of Relevant Act, 02 pp & 06 pp HOWEVER, None of the enclosures mentioned above have been supplied. Please provide legible copies of the same.
3. Further, in the Note dated 08.03.2019 of SI Dushyant Panwar titled -
Reference Attached- a mention is made of three Enclosures namely:
a. Original Complaint (07 PP) b. Documents of Legal Opinion (14 PP) c. Copy of statements (02 PP) HOWEVER, None of the enclosures mentioned above have been supplied. Please provide legible copies of the same.
4. In the original RTI application (DEPOL/R/2019/52112), it was specifically requested to provide.
a. The forwarding letter, the brief and all enclosures/documents sent for legal opinion.
b. The legal opinion alongwith all supporting documents and enclosures received.
Why have the same not been supplied. Kindly provide all the enclosures as requested in the said RTI and also mentioned in points 2 and 3 above.
5. Why are page numbers missing on all the pages provided in the reply dated 18.07.2019 by First Appellate Authority.
The CPIO/Addl. DCP, South District vide letter dated 09.09.2019 replied as under:-
Page 3 of 11Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2019. The FAA, vide order dated 05.11.2019 decided the First Appeal without passing any direction, with the following observation:-
Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 31.12.2021 has been received from the PIO/ADCP, South District, Delhi Police, referring to the facts related to the RTI application dated 22.04.2019. The submission includes a detailed report of PSI Dushyant Panwar, PS Defence Colony which had been submitted before the Prosecution Branch as well as the legal opinion given by the Addl. PP upon perusal of the facts of the matter. The Addl PP clearly opined that no criminal case of abduction/kidnapping is made out against the wife of the complainant-the Appellant in this case. The PIO/ADCP, South - Shri M Harsha Vardhan sought exemption from attending the hearing and deputed the ACP/Defence Colony to attend the hearing.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and deliberations between parties reveal that the substantive dispute between the Appellant and his wife is pending trial before the District and Sessions Court, Saket, New Delhi but the Appellant is aggrieved by denial of accurate information in response to the queries raised by him vide his RTI Application dated 14.08.2019. He averred that on receipt of the PIO's reply, when he visited the Respondent for inspection of records, he was denied the documents specifically mentioned by him in the RTI application, on some pretext or the other. Respondent present for hearing is unable to confirm whether any document was provided to the Appellant in response to his RTI application dated 14.08.2019.
Decision At the very outset it is noted that the Appellant has mixed up the case by conflating facts of two RTI applications. To add to the confusion, though the Page 4 of 11 PIO/ADCP had deputed ACP/Defence Colony to attend the hearing, in fact been a Head Constable and a Sub Inspector, both of whom had little or no knowledge about the matter. The submission dated 31.12.2021 submitted by the PIO/ADCP- - Shri M Harsha Vardhan referred to the RTI application dated 22.04.2019 but did not mention anything about the relevant RTI application dated 14.08.2019 including what documents had been actually provided to the Appellant. None of the documents annexed with the submission dated 31.12.2021 relate to the RTI queries raised by the Appellant vide his RTI application dated 14.08.2019. Perusal of the FAA's order dated 05.11.2019 also does not indicate what documents had been actually provided to the Appellant. Thus multiple lapses on the part of the Respondent, including deputing staff, who are neither the PIO or the APIO and who were completely unprepared with the facts of the case, led to the proceedings being vitiated today. In fact the Commission notes that the case at hand has not been handled appropriately by the Respondent.
The Commission finds that the FAA, while passing the order dated 05.11.2019 has not dealt with the fact as to what information was actually provided to the Appellant in context of his RTI application dated 14.08.2019. Thus the order suffers from infirmity and is not sustainable as such. Under the given circumstances, the Commission deems it appropriate that the FAA must revisit the First Appeal dated 02.10.2019 and pass a reasoned speaking order after hearing the contentions of both parties, making a note of the documents actually supplied to the Appellant. A copy of the FAA's order should be submitted before the Commission by 28.02.2022.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the DCP, South - Ms. Benita Mary to ensure that officials not less than the rank of ACP, with knowledge about the matter concerned are deputed to attend hearings before the Commission, in future. The Commission will be constrained to take strict action if its directions are not complied with.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/623406 The Appellant has referred to multiple RTI applications with the Second Appeal, in the following manner:
Reference:-
1. Vide RTI application No. DEPOL/R/2019/51612 the Applicant sought information pertaining to the DE proceedings. In reply of APIO dated 18.04.2019, it was stated that disclosing the Enquiry Report and its annexures at this stage would cause hindrance in the smooth finalization of the pending DE.
2. Subsequently, after conclusion of the DE, this Applicant again vide RTI Application dated 06.03.2020, Regn No. DEPOL/R/E/20/01531 again requested for information pertaining to the said DE. In reply, however, NONE of the information sought Page 5 of 11 from Sl. No. 1-6 were supplied for some oblique reasons even though the relevant records and information were available with the APIO.
3. Further, in reply to Query 8, it was stated that three (03) pages may be collected from the office of APIO on any working day. In view of the unsafe Pandemic situation in Delhi, this Applicant requested that a copy of the documents may please be sent by post to the Applicant and payment collected electronically.
The Appellant filed first an online RTI application dated 28.03.2019 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, CC- I- Coy., 5th Battalion, DAP New Police Lines Complex, Kingsway Camp and to the DCP, South District, Hauz Khas and sought the following information regarding missing MLC and DE proceedings against HC (Exe.) Manoj Kumar, 1231/SD (now 4076/DAP):-
I attended the ongoing DE proceedings against HC (Exe.) Manoj Kumar, 1231/SD (now 4076/DAP) on 07.08.2018 vide Notice received from Insp. Kehar Singh on 30.07.2018. Subsequently vide letter dated 24.08.2018, I also submitted certain facts for your consideration before taking a final decision in the case.
1. What are the findings of Disciplinary Enquiry (DE). A final report of the same may be made available to the applicant.
2. Please furnish a copy of the enclosures of the final DE Report especially the statements of witnesses, including that of HC Manoj and my statement.
3. If MLC of the applicant was carried out, what was the reason that no action was taken by the I/O HC Manoj and/or PS Defence Colony against my wife Mrs Payal Maheshwari for inflicting grievous hurt upon the applicant on 25.09.2015.
4. What was the reason stated by HC Manoj for acting against me and in favour of my wife, in the false complaint submitted by her.
5. Is any action being taken by PS Defence Colony against Mrs. Payal Maheswari for causing grievous hurt namely fracture of my left thumb on 25.09.2015. If no, why.
6. Was my submission dated 24.08.2018 placed on record before the Inquiry Committee before taking a final decision.
This had been responded by the DCP, New Police Lines, Kingsway Camp, vide reply dated 18.04.2019 as follows:
Page 6 of 11Subsequently, the Appellant filed another online RTI application dated 06.03.2020 seeking information regarding DE proceedings against HC(Exe.) Manoj Kumar, 1231/SD (now 4076/DAP) on the following points:-
I attended the DE proceedings against HC (Exe.) Manoj Kumar on 07.08.2018 vide Notice received from Insp. Kehar Singh on 30.07.2018. Subsequently, on more than one occasions, I also submitted certain facts for your consideration before taking a final decision in the case.
1. What are the findings of Disciplinary Enquiry (DE). A final report of the same may be made available to the applicant.
2. Please furnish a copy of the enclosures of the final DE Report especially the statements of witnesses, including that of HC Manoj and my statement.
3. If MLC of the applicant was carried out, what was the reason as stated by I/O HC Manoj that no action was taken by HC Manoj and/or PS Defence Colony against my wife Mrs Payal Maheshwari for inflicting grievous hurt upon me on 25.09.2015.
4. What was the reason as stated by HC Manoj for acting in such biased manner against me and in favour of my wife, in the false complaint submitted by her.
5.When (date/year) were these disciplinary proceedings initiated.
6. On whose Orders were these disciplinary proceedings were initiated.
7. Were these proceedings initiated on the Orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
8. Please provide a copy of the Order/Direction of the concerned authority (whether CIC or any official of Delhi Police etc.) on whose orders these proceedings were initiated.
The CPIO/DCP, 5th Bn, DAP, Delhi vide letter dated 31.03.2020 replied as under:-
Page 7 of 11Dissatisfied with the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.05.2020.
The FAA/DCP, Hauz Khas, South District vide order dated 09.06.2020 stated that PIO/SD has supplied requisite information on the basis of a report received from Punishment Branch, South District, Delhi Police. Further, the FAA observed that the matter pertains to 5thBn DAP. Therefore, the FAA transferred the First Appeal and RTI application of appellant to First Appellate Authority, 5th BN, DAP for taking necessary action, under section 6(3) of RTI Act for providing the information directly to the applicant.
The PIO/DCP/5th Bn DAPvide reply dated 06.07.2020 replied as under:
"PIO/DCP/5th BN DAP has intimated that the disclosure and information sought by you has no relation to any activity or interest and likely to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the 3rd party. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 @ CC 14781/2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC &Ors. held that such sort of information is personal information and exempted from disclosure".
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submission dated 31.12.2021 has been received from the Addl DCP, South reiterating the above facts. Another communication dated 18.01.2022 has been received from the Addl DCP, South deputing ACP/Hq and Inspector Complaint Branch to attend the hearing.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and Page 8 of 11 the Appellant has submitted written submissions during the course of the day, stating the following:
• As per direction of Hon'ble CIC dated 18.07.2017 vide No CIC/SB/A/2016/001312 onthe same subject matter, Delhi Police was directed to take appropriate departmental action against the officers responsible for misplacement of MLC records and supply a copy of the Inquiry Report along with action taken report to the Appellant. Accordingly, the said DE Inquiry Report with its annexures may be supplied to the Appellant.
• I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court Of Gujarat wherein it was held at Para 39 that "... the Central Public Information Officer or the appellate authority may order disclosure of such information, if they are satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure. This would imply that personal information which has some relationship to any public activity or interest may be liable to be disclosed." The same ratio is also reiterated in Paras 13, 14 and 15 of theApex Court judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs Central InformationCommissioner.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records submitted by the parties, the Commission finds it necessary to place reliance on the Apex Court's judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commissioner, which clearly laid down:
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects 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 would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
14. .............
15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.Page 9 of 11
16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
Emphasis supplied In so far as the earlier order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Commission in earlier Second Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001312 filed by the Appellant is concerned, it had been directed as follows:
"....the Commission directs the FAA, South District, Delhi Police to conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain whether any MLC of the appellant was conducted and if so, to inquire into the reasons for the missing MLC report. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for the misplacement of the records. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant.
A proper reading of the complete direction indicates that the Commission had given a two fold direction a) Delhi Police to conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain whether any MLC of the appellant was conducted and if so, to inquire into the reasons for the missing MLC report. And b) FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for the misplacement of the records. The Commission had directed the Respondent- Delhi Police to furnish a copy of the inquiry report as specified in the earlier direction, not the copy of the departmental action because the initiation of the departmental action was left to the discretion of the FAA. The reply furnished by the CPIO/DCP, 5th Bn, DAP, Delhi vide letter dated 31.03.2020, particularly with respect to queries 1 to 6, is found adequate since information about the departmental action and punishment given to Head Constable Manoj Kumar has been clearly stated in the reply. Copy of the Departmental Enquiry report cannot be furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs Central Information Commissioner cited above.
Thus, the Commission finds no requirement of further intervention in the instant appeal.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) Page 10 of 11 S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 11 of 11