Central Information Commission
Iswar Singh vs Central Reserve Police Force on 5 September, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000651/CRPFO
Dated 01.09.2017
Appellant : Shri Ishwar Singh
Respondent : The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
O/o the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2017/ 01.08.2017/01.09.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the Appeal:
RTI application : 04.10.2014
First Appeal : 25.11.2014
Second Appeal : 16.11.2015
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), seeking information on five points, including, inter alia, (i) whether it is correct that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 were not applicable in the case of appellant since he had resigned from his service in the year 1970, and (ii) if the appellant is entitled to the payment of the pension, then a copy of the Rules applicable in this regard be provided.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that incomplete and misleading information was furnished by both the CPIO and Page | 1 the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought.
Hearing on 11.07.2017:
3. Shri Akash Malik, the authorized representative of the appellant, Shri Ishwar Singh, and the respondent, Shri Ajay Pal, Assistant Commandant, CRPF, participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The authorized representative of the appellant submitted that incomplete and misleading information, in response to his RTI application, was furnished by both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), CRPF.
5. The respondent submitted that as per the Notice of Hearing dated 05.07.2017, the appellant was named as "Shri Akash Malik" and accordingly, they had carried the file pertaining to the matter filed by Shri Akash Malik. The respondent further submitted that he was not carrying the file pertaining to the matter of Shri Ishwar Singh and therefore, requested the Commission to adjourn the matter to enable him to effectively present his case before the Commission.
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the authorized representative of the appellant in the present matter was inadvertently named as the "appellant" by the Central Registry of the Commission. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the Registrar, Central Information Commission, to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
7. The Commission further directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a fresh Notice of Hearing to both the appellant and the respondent. The matter is adjourned to 01.08.2017 at 01:45 p.m. Page | 2 Hearing on 01.08.2017:
8. Shri Akash Malik, the authorized representative of the appellant, Shri Ishwar Singh, and the respondent, Shri Ajay Pal, Assistant Commandant, CRPF, participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
Interim Decision:
9. Due to some unforeseen circumstances, the matter could not be taken up for hearing. The matter is adjourned to 01.09.2017 at 01:45 p. m.
Hearing on 01.09.2017:
10. The appellant, Shri Ishwar Singh, was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Ajay Pal, Assistant Commandant, CRPF, participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
11. The respondent submitted that vide the CPIO's reply dated 00.09.2014, the appellant was informed that the CRPF has been declared an exempt organization under Section 24(1) read with Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The provisions of the RTI Act are, therefore, not applicable in this matter. Nevertheless, the respondent stated that the appellant was informed that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 were not applicable in his case as he had tendered his resignation from the service in 1970. The respondent also apprised the Commission that the grant of pension is handled by a separate department viz. the Pay and Accounts Office (PAO), CRPF, Mahavir Nagar. The respondent also stated that the FAA vide Order dated 08.12.2014 had reiterated the reply furnished by the CPIO.
Decision:
12. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that in this case information has been sought from an organization to which the RTI Act does not apply as per Section 24(1) of Page | 3 the RTI Act. However, the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 7453/2011 dated 09.10.2013 (Union of Indian v. Adarsh Sharma) has held that:
"5. .......if an information of the nature sought by the respondent is easily available with the Intelligence Bureau, the agency would be well-advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right under the provisions of Right to Information Act................It is again made clear that information of this nature cannot be sought as a matter of right and it would be well within the discretion of the Intelligence Bureau whether to supply such information or not........."
In view of the above, the Commission would like the CRPF to consider the request of the appellant and transfer his RTI application dated 04.10.2014 to the Pay and Accounts Office (PAO), CRPF, Mahavir Nagar, under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, so that the information sought by the appellant could be provided to him, as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
13. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page | 4