Central Information Commission
Prem Singh vs Delhi Police on 11 September, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/152942
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/125041
CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/649004
Shri Prem Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,Delhi Police, O/o the ADCP, SED, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Sarita Vihar, Delhi
Through: Sh. Brijender Singh - ACP, Sarita Vihar
Date of Hearing : 10.09.2020
Date of Decision : 11.09.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO dated Complaint/Second
Nos. on dated Appeal Appeal dated
dated
152942 01.05.2018 24.05.2018 01.06.2018 19.06.2018 28.08.2018
125041 12.03.2019 N.A. Undated N.A. 28.05.2019
649004 15.06.2019 16.07.2019 18.07.2019 09.08.2019 Nil
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/152942
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 01.05.2018 seeking
information on following points.
1. Provide copy of report of PCR call DD No. 44 A & 50 A and certified copy
of the closure report by Investigation Officer relating to the PCR call
made on 13.04.2018 about the dispute which occurred at Bhangar
Chowk, Madanpur Khadar with Gagan Singh, S/o Prem Singh.
2. Certified copy of DD No.6A dated 14.04.2018 and copy of MLC of
Gagan Singh available with the Investigation Officer.
Page 1 of 6
The PIO/ADCP, SED,Delhi Police furnished a reply to the appellant vide letter
dated 24.05.2018 stating that FIR Nos. 101/18 and 102/18 had been filed on
the basis of DD Nos. 44A, 50A and 6A, copies whereof were available in the
office of the respondent and can be obtained on payment of cost of Rs. 2/- per
page on any working day between 11.00 hrs. to 16.00hrs. Remaining
documents were denied citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 stating that
the above mentioned FIRs were pending investigation.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 01.06.2018. The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2018 observed that
the PIO had replied to the appellant vide communication dated 24.05.2018 and
upheld the reply of PIO that both the cases were pending investigation and
therefore, further documents were barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h)
of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 07.09.2020 has been received from PIO/ACP, South
East District-Sh. Kumar Gyanesh seeking exemption from hearing and deputing
ACP/Sarita Vihar - Sh. Brijender Singh and Sh. Ajab Singh- SHO, Sarita Vihar
to attend the hearing. The respondent has furnished a brief submission
reiterating the facts of the case.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic,
COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the
parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their
respective telephones.
Appellant states that he has been denied information even when he went to
inspect the records.
Respondent states that the appellant is a complainant in 101/2018 and an
accused in the FIR No. 102/2018. Since the cases with respect to both the FIRs
are currently pending before the Court, appellant can obtain the necessary
records from the Court of MM at Saket, where he appears regularly. It has been
stated by the respondent that charge sheet has been filed on 22.12.2018 in the
FIR no. 101/2018 and on 12.10.2018 in FIR No. 102/2018.
Decision
Upon hearing the contentions of both parties, it is evident that the FIRs are
already available with the appellant, who is contesting the cases which have
arisen therefrom. In so far as the closure report, mentioned in the query no. 1 is
concerned, there appears no impediment in providing the same to the appellant.
Page 2 of 6
The bar in disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 is
also no longer available since the process of investigation is over, with the filing
of the chargesheet. The respondent is accordingly directed to provide a copy of
the closure report as sought by the appellant in query number 1, within three
weeks of receipt of this order. Compliance report in his regard shall be
submitted by the respondent, before the Commission by 15.10.2020. Appellant
is at liberty to obtain the MLC report from the Court concerned, where the
criminal cases are pending trial.
The appeal is disposed off as such.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/125041
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2019 seeking information on 04 points pertaining to SI Satish Chand P.I.S. Number 28800417, ASI Sharad Belt Number 754/SE PIS Number 28901490 both posted in P.S. Sarita Vihar and investigating the FIR nos. 101/18 and 102/18:
1. How many complaints have received against both Police Officers from the date of their Joining in DelhiPolice.
2. Kindly provide figure of complaints against both police Officers.
3. Name of Enquiry Officer of each complaint.
4. Finding of each complaint in details.
(Queries reproduced verbatim) Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. Since the First Appeal was also not adjudicated, feeling aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 07.09.2020 has been received from PIO/ACP, South East District-Sh. Kumar Gyanesh seeking exemption from hearing and deputing ACP/Sarita Vihar - Sh. Brijender Singh and Sh. Ajab Singh- SHO, Sarita Vihar to attend the hearing. The respondent has furnished a brief submission stating that the PIO/SED had provided a response to the RTI application vide reply dated 27.03.2019 denying the requisite information under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as third party information. The First Appeal was also decided vide order dated 26.04.2019, upholding the PIO's reply. Copies of PIO's reply and FAA's order have been enclosed with the submission.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones. Appellant had not disclosed the fact that the PIO as well Page 3 of 6 as FAA had denied information under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not offer any explanation in this regard.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveal that the information sought by the appellant relates to service and performance related details of two police officials who happen to be investigating his cases. The reply of the respondent is found appropriate, because the information is held by the respondent in fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed at large. It is noted that response of the respondent is in consonance with the well settled position of law, as held by the Supreme Court on multiple instances, particularly the decision dated 31.08.2017 in the case of Canara Bank vs. C S Shyam.
Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion, that the ratio propounded by the Apex Court applies to the facts of this case and therefore denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 is found appropriate. It is also noted that the appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the employees. Thus no further adjudication of this case is deemed necessary.
The appeal is dismissed as such.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/649004 Information sought and background of the case:
This case arises out of an incident wherein the appellant's son was reportedly beaten up and his gold chain snatched, in the area of Police Station Sarita Vihar. FIR No. 101/18 was filed in this regard and a counter FIR 102/18 was also registered in the PS Sarita Vihar. The FIR No. 102/18 was filed against the appellant and his son, which led to departmental proceedings being initiated against the appellant. In this background, the Appellant filed online RTI application dated 15.06.2019 for obtaining a certified copy of Duty roster/Chitha Police Station Sarita Vihar for the date of 12,13,14, 15-04-2018.
The PIO/ADCP, Delhi Police denied the information to the appellant under Section 8(1)/(e)/(j)/(g) of RTI Act vide letter dated 16.07.2019.
Meanwhile on not receiving any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2019. The FAA vide order dated 09.08.2019 held as follows:
"...The undersigned has carefully gone through the contentions/submissions of the Appellant put forth in the Appel. The Appellant is apprised of the fact that the reply of PIO (Addl. DCP)/SED has been sent to Appellant through speed post. However, a copy of the same is enclosed with this order, under the RTI Act 2005".Page 4 of 6
A copy of the PIO's reply dated 16.07.2019 was sent to the appellant with the FAA's order. Aggrieved on not receiving the desired information, the appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 07.09.2020 has been received from PIO/ACP, South East District-Sh. Kumar Gyanesh seeking exemption from hearing and deputing ACP/Sarita Vihar - Sh. Brijender Singh and Sh. Ajab Singh- SHO, Sarita Vihar to attend the hearing. The respondent has furnished a brief submission reiterating the facts of the case.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephones. On being asked by the Commission to justify the applicability of the Section 8(1)(e)/(j)/(g) of the RTI Act, while denying information, respondent stated that the duty rosters indicate deployment of officials for various duties, including VIP duties, disclosure of which could cause breach of security and hence, the information was denied.
Decision After careful perusal of the records of the case and averments of the parties, the denial of information regarding "Duty roster/Chitha of Police Station Sarita Vihar for the dates of 12,13,14, 15-04-2018" is not found convincing. The provisions cited by the respondent include i) information held in fiduciary capacity,
ii) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person and iii) information which relates to personal information and disclosure whereof may cause invasion of privacy.
Application of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of RTI Act, 2005 could not be substantiated by the respondent during hearing. The respondent has stated that disclosure of information about posting of police officials on VIP security was denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the Act. It has not been explained by the respondent how information about security cover given in 2018 could possibly endanger any individual, one year later when the RTI Application was filed. The arguments placed forth by the respondent cannot be entertained and are rejected.
In the light of the above discussion, the Commission hereby directs the respondent-ACP/Sarita Vihar - Sh. Brijender Singh present during hearing to furnish a revised reply providing the copies of "Duty roster/Chitha of Police Station Sarita Vihar for the date of 12,13,14, 15-04-2018" sought by the appellant, redacting any information which is likely to infringe privacy or security of any individual upon justifying the same. Compliance report with proof of service of the information to the appellant, must reach the Commission Page 5 of 6 by 15.10.2020, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated as per law.
The appeal is thus disposed off, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6