Central Information Commission
Manju Pandey vs Delhi Police on 10 June, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/177272
Manju Pandey ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, O/o Addl. Dy. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Commissioner of Police:
Vigilance, Delhi Police, New
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.08.2017 FA : 27.09.2017 SA : 16.11.2017
CPIO : 04.09.2017,
FAO : 10.10.2017 Hearing : 03.06.2019
16.10.2017
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police: Vigilance, Delhi Police, seeking information on eight points pertaining to the status of Departmental Inquiry against Inspector Rajnish Page 1 of 5 Parmar initiated vide Order No. 8300-25/P. Cell (P-V)- Vig. in relation to the death of Shri Karan Pandey, including, inter-alia, (i) name of the current Inquiry Officer, and (ii) a copy of the order passed by Inquiry Officer in the Dept. inquiry against the official.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has denied the information sought for vide point nos. (ii), (iv), (v),
(vi) and (vii) of the RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. She further contended that even though the Disciplinary Authority has discharged the official concerned, the CPIO has erroneously stated that no order was passed in the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the requisite information to her.
Hearing:
3. Shri Simon Benjamin, the appellant's advocate attended the hearing late. The respondent Shri N.S. Minhas, ACP/Vigilance, O/o Addl. DCP: Vigilance, Delhi Police, Delhi was present in person.
4. The appellant's representative submitted that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought for vide point nos. (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of the RTI application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the delinquent official based on her complaint. He further contended that even though the Disciplinary Authority has discharged the official concerned, the CPIO has erroneously stated that no order was passed in Page 2 of 5 the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The appellant requested that a copy of the discharge order may be provided to him in the interest of justice.
5. The respondent submitted that point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 04.09.2017 and 16.10.2017. He further affirmed that the Inquiry Officer does not pass any order in the inquiry, and he only submits his finding in respect of the charges levelled against the officer. Further, a copy of the discharge order cannot be provided to the appellant in view of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 03.10.2012 in the case of Shri Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others (SLP (C) no. 27734 of 2012. The respondent further clarified that the CPIO vide letter dated 17.01.2018 had sought the consent of third party, Inspector Rajnish Parmar, as per the procedure laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act for furnishing a copy of the discharge order and final order of the Disciplinary Authority against him to the appellant. However, the official vide letter dated 23.01.2018 has denied his consent for disclosure of the aforesaid information to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant has a right to know as to what action has been taken by the respondent authority on her complaint against Inspector Rajnish Parmar. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin vs. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., [W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017] had held as under:Page 3 of 5
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
11. In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the finding of the Inquiry Officer as well as the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the appellant's complaint, to her, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 59. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 04.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o Dy. Commissioner of Police: Vigilance, Delhi Police, 5th Floor, Police Station Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, 5th Floor, Police Station Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
3. Ms. Manju Pandey Page 5 of 5