Central Information Commission
Naresh vs Police Department on 25 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604401
CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604650
Naresh .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
O/O the DSP (Crime) Chandigarh
Police, Headquarters, 4th Floor,
Additional Deluxe Building,
Sector 9, Chandigarh - 160009.
2. PIO,
DSP - Rectt. & Trg, Chandigarh Police,
Headquarters, 4th Floor, Additional
Deluxe Building,
Sector 9, Chandigarh - 160009 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 24.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The issues raised by the appellant in both the above cases are identical.
Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both cases.
CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604401
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.11.2023
Page 1 of 8
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 26.09.2023 seeking the following information:
" नवेदन है क म सपाह नरे श बे ट नंबर 6200/CP U/S Police lines Sector 26 Chandigarh तैनात हूँ मेरे अपने ह वभाग ने FIR No. 166 DT 30-11-2022 पु लस !टे शन सै"टर-11 च%डीगढ़ म) Chandigarh म) *गर+तार कया था। िजसक1 तफतीश 3ाइम 5ांच ने क1 थी। िजसक1 चाज6 शीट कोट6 म) दे द गई है िजसक1 कॉपी पूण6 ;प से मझ ु े नह ं मल है । िजस करके =बना कागजात के RDE फेस करना बहुत मिु >कल है । आप जी से अनरु ोध है क FIR No. 166 Dt. 30-11-2022 से सAबिBधत पण ू 6 जानकार द जाये जो इस Cकार है :-
1. FIR No. 166 DT 30-11-2022 पु लस !टे शन सै"टर-11 च%डीगढ़ म) कतने फॉम6 स!पे"टे ड क1 ल!ट म) आये थे। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
2. स!पे"टे ड फॉम6 को कस बे सस पर स!पे"ट क1 केटे गर म) लया गया। कृपया Fडटे ल द जाये।
3. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) जो भी फॉम6 स!पे"ट क1 ल!ट म) आये थे। िजनको वेर फाई कया गया है । कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
4. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) जो भी स!पे"ट फॉम6 थे। उन पर कोई ए"शन लया गया। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
5. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) िजस भी कFडडेट का फॉम6 Kरजे"ट हुआ है । और Kरजे"शन कस बे सस पर कया गया। कृपया CोसीFडंग/ डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
6. फॉम6 नंबर 7018881 नरे श (my self) का फॉम6 कस बे सस पर स!पे"ट ल!ट म) लया गया। और बाद म) Kरजे"ट कया। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
7. कृपया फॉम6 नंबर 7018881,7018883 क1 कलर सॉ+ट कॉपी व कलर Cंट Nदया जाये।Page 2 of 8
8. फॉम6 नंबर 7018881,7018883 का एOल केशन नंबर जरनेट होने क1 डेट एंड टाईम, सब मट होने क1 डेट एंड टाईम, IP Address ओनर शप के साथ कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
9. कृपया फॉम6 नंबर 7018881 िजस कमेट Qवारा Kरजे"ट हुआ। उनके मेAबर व चेयरमेन क1 Fडटे ल द जाये। आप क1 अ त कृपा होगी।
10. FIR No. 166 Dt. 30-11-2022 से सAबिBधत Dt. 05-12-2022 से 09-12-2022 क1 रवानगी वापसी क1 DDR copy द जाये,"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.10.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard, as per report obtained from Inspector Crime Branch, the charge-sheet in case FIR No.166/2022 has been sent to Hon'ble Court for judicial verdict, as such the requisite information could not be provided as per the provision of section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.
With this, your RTI application is stand disposed off as far as this office is concerned."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604650 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.09.2023 CPIO replied on : 26.10.2023 First appeal filed on : 06.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.11.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.02.2024 Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 26.09.2023 seeking the following information:
Page 3 of 8" नवेदन है क म सपाह नरे श बे ट नंबर 6200/CP U/S Police lines Sector 26 Chandigarh तैनात हूँ मेरे अपने ह वभाग ने FIR No. 166 DT 30-11-2022 पु लस !टे शन सै"टर-11 च%डीगढ़ म) Chandigarh म) *गरRतार कया था। िजसक1 तफ़तीश 3ाइम 5ांच ने क1 थी। िजसक1 चाज6 शीट कोट6 म) दे द गई है िजसक1 कॉपी पूण6 ;प से मझ ु े नह ं मल है । िजस करके =बना कागजात के RDE फेस करना बहुत मिु >कल है । आप जी से अनरु ोध है क FIR No. 166 Dt. 30-11-2022 से सAबिBधत पण ू 6 जानकार द जाये जो इस Cकार है :-
1. FIR No. 166 DT 30-11-2022 पु लस !टे शन सै"टर-11 च%डीगढ़ म) कतने फॉम6 स!पे"टे ड क1 ल!ट म) आये थे। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
2. स!पे"टे ड फॉम6 को कस बे सस पर स!पे"ट क1 केटे गर म) लया गया।
कृपया Fडटे ल द जाये।
3. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) ऑनलाइन फॉम6 भरे जाते थे। उनम) कोई डोकोम)ट अपलोड होता था। कृपया Fडटे ल द जाये।
4. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) जो भी फॉम6 स!पे"ट क1 ल!ट म) आये थे। िजनको वेर फाई कया गया है । कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
5. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) जो भी स!पे"ट फॉम6 थे। उन पर कोई ए"शन लया गया। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
6. च%डीगढ़ पु लस ASI 2022 क1 भतH म) िजस भी कFडडेट का फॉम6 Kरजे"ट हुआ है । और Kरजे"शन कस बे सस पर कया गया। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
7. फॉम6 नंबर 7018881 नरे श (my self) का फॉम6 कस बे सस पर स!पे"ट ल!ट म) लया गया। और बाद म) Kरजे"ट कया। कृपया CोसीFडंग / डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
8. कृपया फॉम6 नंबर 7018881,7018883 क1 कलर सॉ+ट कॉपी व कलर Cंट Nदया जाये।
9. फॉम6 नंबर 7018881,7018883 का एOल केशन नंबर जरनेट होने क1 डेट एंड टाईम, सब मट होने क1 डेट एंड टाईम, IP Address ओनर शप के साथ कृपया CोसीFडंग डोकोम)ट Fडटे ल द जाये।
Page 4 of 810. कृपया फॉम6 नंबर 7018881 िजस कमेट Qवारा Kरजे"ट हुआ। उनके मेAबर व चेयरमेन क1 Fडटे ल द जाये । आप क1 अ त कृपा होगी।"
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.10.2023 stating as under:
"In response to your RTI application dated 26.9.2023, submitted to the Chief Coordinator, UIAMS (Examination Unit), PU, Sector-14, Chandigarh transferred to the Chairperson, Recruitment Board, Chandigarh Police, HQr., Additional Deluxe Building, Sector-9, Chandigarh u/s 6(3) of Right to Information Act-2005 vide Endst.No. UIAMS/Ex.7802, dated 28.9.2023. The RTI application received in the office of the undersigned on 4.10.2023 through the O/o W/SP/Headquarters, UT., Chandigarh on the subject cited above. The requisite information as provided by the In- charge Recruitment Cell is as under:-
Point No.1,2,4,5,6,7:- As per the data provided by the service provider total 122 forms were found to be filled up duplicate/triplicate which seem to be doubtful and found false credentials. Further FIR No.166, dated 30.11.2022 u/s 419,420,467,468,471,120B, 511 IPC has been registered in the PS-11 (Crime Branch) which is under investigation. The desired information regarding particular detail of each candidate is denied under section 8(1) (J) of the Right to Information Act-2005. Point No.3:- The information sought is available on the official website of Chandigarh Police i.e. https://chandigarhpolice.gov.in/(SOP) Point No.8,9:- In this regard case FIR No.166, dated 30.11.2022 u/s 419,420,467,468,471,120B, 511 IPC has been registered against applicant in the PS-11 (Crime Branch) which is under investigation. So, requisite information cannot be provided to you as this information could hamper the investigation of above said case. Point No.10:- Due to administrative reasons and secrecy of the committee, information of the official of secrecy committee can not be disclosed, so the information is denied under section 8(1) (J) of the Right to Information Act-2005."
7. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22.11.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
Page 5 of 8The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through videoconference. Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CPIO, O/O DSP (Crime), Chandigarh along with Shri Amrao Singh, DSP (Training)/CPIO, Chandigarh present through videoconference.
9. In case File No. CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604401, the Appellant while reiterating the contents of RTI application contended that he is aggrieved by the fact that the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondents under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act without proper justification. He contended that such information is needed by him to defend himself in the disciplinary case initiated against the Appellant. While in case File No. CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604650, he pleaded that complete and satisfactory information was not furnished to him till date. He further contended that biased approach of Respondent Authorities in taking action against him only where 121 other candidates were also found guilty. He prayed the Commission to intervene in the matter.
10. The Respondent explained that subject matter of these Appeals relates to submissions of duplicate/forged forms by some candidates for the post of ASI 2022 in Chandigarh Police including the Appellant. In this regard, an FIR was lodged bearing FIR No. 166 dated 30.11.2022. In case File No. CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604401, he further submitted that since the investigation in the matter was ongoing at the relevant time, therefore, the disclosure of information would apparently impede the process of investigation. Accordingly, the information has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. As on date, the enquiry in the matter is complete and chargesheet has been filed before the Court of Law. In case File No. CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604650, point-wise reply along with permissible information has already been provided to the Appellant barring the personal information of other candidates which attracts applicability of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
11. In case File No. CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604401, the Commission upon a perusal of records and after submissions of both the parties observes that the core Page 6 of 8 contention of the Appellant revolves around the issue of denial of information on his RTI application by the CPIO. In response to which the CPIO has failed to explain the reasons for invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act when the inquiry was already complete.
12. The Commission is of the view that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is related to the documents pertaining to his own case where he has been charge-sheeted as one of the accused and facing departmental proceedings. He wants to compare treatment of similarly placed persons/delinquents.
13. The Commission further observes that the Respondent has invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in denying the information but when the Commission asked for the justification of invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the Respondent has not given any plausible explanation regarding the same. However, upon being further queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that investigation in the matter is already completed.
14. In this regard, the Commission referred to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B S Mathur Vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 295/2011 dated 03.06.2011 wherein the Hon'ble Court had specifically held as:
"Contextually in Section 8 (1) (h) it will mean anything which would hamper and interfere with procedure followed in the investigation and have the effect to hold back the progress of investigation, apprehension of offenders or prosecution of offenders. However, the impediment, if alleged, must be actual and not make belief and a camouflage to deny information. To claim exemption under the said sub-section it has to be ascertained in each case whether the claim by the public authority has any reasonable basis".
15. Therefore, the stand taken by the Respondent in denying the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is not sustainable and is thus, set aside. The Respondent is directed to re-examine the contents of the RTI Application in the light of above observation and give revised point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
16. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
Page 7 of 817. In case File No. CIC/PODEP/A/2024/604650, the Commission, after hearing submissions of both the parties and perusal of records find no infirmity in the reply furnished by the Respondent as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. No relief can be granted in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Superintendent of Polce, Police headquarter, 4th floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector-9, Chandigarh - 160009 Copy To:
IPS SPSP/PHQ-cum-FAA, 4th Floor, PHQ, Sector-9, Chandigarh- 160009 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)