Central Information Commission
Shri J. K. Sharma vs Dy. Commissioner Of Police (Dcp) South, ... on 26 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00698 dated 17.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri J. K. Sharma
Respondent - Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP) South, Delhi
ORDER
By our Order of 30.7.2008, we had directed as follows:
"In this case the information sought relates to third parties. We are given to understand that appellant is advocate for these parties and therefore there need be no objection to his receiving the information. However, to ensure compliance with Sec 11 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the parties will provide a letter authorizing appellant to access the information sought, which appellant Shri Sharma will present to the DCP (South) before obtaining the documents directed to be provided to him.
From the above, it is also clear that in fact the enquiry was completed at the time that PIO Shri Anil Shukla responded to the application of appellant Shri J. K Sharma. He may, therefore, now show cause u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act why he should not be penalized for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for knowingly providing incorrect and misleading information to appellant Shri Sharma. He may do this either in writing by 13.8.08 or by personal appearance before us on 25.8.2008 at 4.00 p.m."
Accordingly the matter was heard on 25.8.2008. The following are present:
Appellant Shri J. K. Sharma Shri B. N. Gupta Respondents Sh. Anil Shukla, SP Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh Sh. Mahabir Prashad, Asstt. O/O PIO SD Before the hearing, appellant Shri J. K. Sharma submitted an application dated 25.8.'08 with the following prayer:
"In these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that to restrain the respondent no. 2 from committing the same criminal nuisance, the 1 appellant be given an opportunity that in his presence, the hearing on the show cause should take place for discerning the truth."
In the meantime, through a letter of 22.8.08 from Shri Anil Shukla, then DCP South Distt. and at present in Arunachal Pradesh, we have received a detailed response. He submitted that the notice dated 22.7.08 addressed to him regarding the hearing fixed for 30.7.08 was received through the Office of Jt. Commissioner of Police on 1.8.08, which is the reason that he was unable to appear on this date.
On the question of the enquiry having been completed at the time the PIO responded to the applicant, thus leading to the conclusion that he had in fact knowingly provided incorrect and misleading information to appellant Shri Sharma, since he would have known that the enquiry was complete, Shri Shukla has submitted a detailed explanation in which he has stated that the supposedly complete enquiry report by the Inspector Mahabir Singh, DIU/SD was in fact not complete since this is enquiry report prepared by the Inspector, which had not been accepted by him as DCP. Based on his suspicion regarding the veracity of this report, this had been subject to further enquiry on the basis of which a fresh enquiry had been ordered by the Jt. Commissioner of Police Southern Range on 12.2.07. He summarized his arguments as follows:
"Mahabir Singh, Inspector, DIU/SD conducted an initial enquiry into the matter and the findings of the same were forwarded by ACP/DIU/SD which was not final as the same was found to be false, motivated and biased one, thus, it was not accepted by the undersigned.
The enquiry was further got conducted through Inspector Special Staff and Inspector Vigilance, South District. These reports were completely in contrast with the biased findings of Mahabir Singh, Inspector/DIU/SD.
The detailed report was sent to Jt. CP/SR on 16.01.2007, which was forwarded by him to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi on 12.02.2007. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi had ordered an enquiry through Vigilance Branch, PHQ. The enquiry conducted by Vigilance Branch, PHQ revealed that the report of Mahabir Singh, 2 Inspector, DIU/ SD was biased one, thus, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi ordered for his suspension and departmental enquiry.
The Commissioner of Police, Delhi has further ordered DCP/Legal Cell for enquiry into the matter, which was later entrusted to crime Branch. All these enquiries revealed the biased approach of the Inspector."
He has thus reiterated his stand that the enquiry into the matter was pending on the date of responding to the application dated 28.2.07 of appellant Shri J. K. Sharma. He, therefore, adheres to his stand that the information sought was exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) sub sec. (e), (g) & (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Appellant Shri Sharma on the other hand retorted that the enquiry asked for was that of the DIU which was complete on the date in question.
On the question of knowingly providing false and misleading information, we find, after hearing arguments and examining the submission of respondent Shri Anil Shukla, then DCP (South) that in fact he had reasons to believe that the enquiry was not complete and, therefore, not discloseable. We cannot therefore conclude that the information given, even if defective as will b seen from our discussion below, cannot be deemed to have been known to have been faulty when it was given. There will, therefore, be no penalty.
However, on the exemptions claimed for information sought, we find as follows:
Exemption sought u/s Sec. 8(1)(e):
This clause of the Act relates to information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. In the present case what has been asked for is the copy of the report of Inspector Mahabir Singh, DIU/SD. According to the DCP's own admission this report had been found dishonest and invalid. It is, therefore, inconceivable that it can be construed as information that is fiduciary in nature, which is information held in trust, and therefore fiduciary in nature. Trust in this 3 case is entirely absent. Exemption sought u/s 8(1) sub sec. (e), therefore, is unacceptable.
Exemption sought u/s Sec. 8(1)(g) On the question of application of exemption u/s 8(1)(g), the information exempted is that the disclosure of which "would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose". Such an exemption cannot be applied to a report that has been rejected and is considered unjustified, leading to the suspension of the police Inspector in question. Exemption sought u/s Sec. 8(1)(h) Similarly, sec. 8(1)(h) refers to such information as would impede the process of investigation, which according to respondents is still in process in the present case. Since the respondents have already rejected the investigation conducted by Shri Mahabir Singh and suspended him for his pains, it is not understood how a report submitted by him, which is not relied upon by the investigating agency can in any way impede the process of investigation.
We find, therefore, that all three grounds on which the then CPIO Shri Shukla has sought exemption from disclosure of the information asked for, which is the enquiry made by Inspector DIU and ACP DIU, do not stand scrutiny. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with our decision of 30.7.08 regarding providing information, as quoted above. The PIO DCP South will comply within ten days if the date of this order Reserved in the hearing, this order is announced in the open chamber on 26.8.08 Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26.8.2008 4 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26.8.2008 5