Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 30 June, 2021

                               के ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

 ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/106756


Smt. Nutan Thakur                                               ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                      VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Under Secretary                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs (Police-I)

PIO, Dy. Secretary(Delhi)
UT Division, M/o Home Affairs

Nodal CPIO,MHA, North Block
Through: Shri Anant Kishore Saran - Director,
Police and Shri B G Krishnan - DS, Services

Date of Hearing                          :   01.06.2021, 30.06.2021
Date of Interim Decision                 :   04.06.2021
Date of Final Decision                   :   30.06.2021

Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on                 :   10.10.2019
PIO replied on                           :   14.11.2019
First Appeal filed on                    :   10.12.2019
First Appellate Order on                 :   10.01.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on          :   10.02.2020

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2019 seeking information on the following 06 points:-

Sri Rakesh Asthana, a 1984 batch Gujarat cadre IPS officer was previously posted in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On 21/10/2018, Sri Asthana was booked in bribery case on the allegations of receiving bribe from an accused probed by him in a case linked to meat exporter Sri Moin Qureshi. On 22/10/2018, CBI arrested deputy SP Sri Devender Kumar in bribery case.

In view of the above facts, kindly provide the following information related with the action by CBI, in larger public interest-

1. Was any report sent by CBI in this regards to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). If yes, kindly provide a copy of the report by CBI.

2. Kindly provide a copy of the base material/facts on the basis of which CBI made this move and sent the given report.

3. Was any recommendation made by CBI as regards Departmental action/enquiry against Sri Kumar in the given case. If yes, kindly provide a copy of this report sent by CBI to MHA.

4. Was any departmental action initiated against Sri Devender Kumar on this report. If yes, kindly provide a copy of this action against him.

5. Kindly provide the present status of this enquiry.

6. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence) of MHA as regards the above matter, including sending of reports to Government on the action taken against Sri Kumar and recommendations made against him.

The CPIO/Under Secretary vide letter dated 14.11.2019 furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant wherein it was inter alia mentioned that M/o Home Affairs (Police-I) Division has not received any report in this regard and that a copy of the RTI application was sent to UT Division, MHA in respect of Shri Devender Kumar (who was Dy. SP in Delhi when arrested) for sending a reply to the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. The FAA/Joint Secretary (Police-I) vide order dated 06.01.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging during the hearing In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled in the matter.

The Appellant's representative, and Respondent Shri Anant Kishore Sharan, Director (Police), M/o Home Affairs denied the receipt of the notice of hearing for this matter. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, US (UTS-1 Section) stated that the information sought is not available with them as their section only deals with service matters of IAS/IPS officers posted in Union Territories.

Interim Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case andthe submissions made by both the parties, it was ascertained that several communications were sent through email to the Respondent, MHA, regarding the hearing for the instant case. Vide email dated 03.06.2021, the US (RTI-I)had intimated that the information sought pertained to the UT Division and hence is forwarded to them for necessary action. Thus, it is clear that intimation of the instant hearing was received by the Respondent, MHA. However, the delivery of notice of hearing to the Appellant cannot be confirmed as notices for all 17 hearings were sent through a common envelope. Thus, in the light of the above observation, the Commission directs the registry of this bench to fix another short date of hearing in the matter. The Commission also directs the Nodal PIO, MHA to ensure that the correct PIO attends on the next date of hearing.

Facts emerging during the hearing: 30.06.2021 In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled in the matter, upon sending hearing notices to this effect. Both parties attended the hearing through audio conference and the Appellant challenged the correctness of the information furnished by Respondent stating that if an FIR was lodged, it is not possible that the information is not available with the Respondent. The Respondent clarified that as per their records no information was found about any officer by the name of Shri Devender Kumar from IAS/IPS/DANIPS. It was further averred by the Respondent(Police-I, Division) that they are responsible for cadre management of IPS officers, the information sought by the Appellant was not available in their records. The FIR mentioned by the Appellant was also not filed by the police authorities, but by CBI, hence no records could be traced with the Respondent public authority at MHA.

Decision This Bench has heard and decided 16 appeals filed by the same Appellant vide order dated 03.06.2021. Facts of the said appeals were also similar wherein information about some or the other official was sought by the Appellant. In the batch of 16 appeals, the Respondent had claimed non availability of the information sought by the Appellant and it was held by this Bench that the CPIO cannot be expected to create any information or collate documents which are not part of their existing record, in terms of the Apex Court decision in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that information sought by the Appellant pertains to disciplinary proceedings/removal of a third party employee which is barred from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Page 3 of 4 Act, 2005 in terms of the Supreme Court decisions in the case of i) Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors., ii) Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, unless there is larger public interest in such disclosure. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest which would justify dissemination of the information and hence, the Commission is not inclined to intervene in this matter.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4