Central Information Commission
Mukesh Kumar Agarwal vs Delhi Police on 17 July, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई ददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/148099
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/148098
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Police-I, Police Station, Parliament
Street, New Delhi
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I,
East Disst. Delhi Ghazipur, New Delhi
Through: Shri Sunder Kumar Yadav,
PIO/ACP - Headquarter and Shri Virender
Kumar Sharma, PIO/ACP-Preet Vihar
present through audio conference
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2020
Date of Decision : 17.07.2020
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 appeal FAO Second
No. on Appeal
filed on
148099 03.05.2018 25.05.2018 04.06.2018 28.06.2018 01.08.2018
148098 10.05.2018 07.06.2018 20.06.2018 17.07.2018 01.08.2018
(1) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/148099
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.05.2018 seeking the following
information:
"I am jobless for last 3 years with ZERO earnings due to this case, a senior citizen
of 61 years now, right to Gratuity is a statutory right and Payment of Gratuity Act
1972 impose a reasonable restriction on the employer in respect of the
fundamental right under article 19(1)(g) [xxxv]. The approach of the employer has
pushed me in such a blind alley of torture that some air and light could enter it on
13/4/3018 when the Arrest Warrant were served against Skoda (India) Pvt Ltd;
Page 1 of 5
601 Akashdeep; 26 A Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110001. During my visits to
Police Station on 25/4/2018 and once again on 27/4/2018 as well as my meeting
with Mr. Suresh Kumar, officer who was entrusted with the job of serving the
arrest warrant, I have provided all the help and guidance for speedier action in the
matter. However now after more than 18 days it appears there is NO RESULT.
Please provide the progress in the matter so far."
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, vide letter dated 25.05.2018 informed
the Appellant as: "As per report of SHO/BK Road, Head Constable Suresh Chander from
Police Station Barakhamba Road was deputed for serving the arrest warrant".
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed a First Appeal
dated 04.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 28.06.2018 stated as follows "...Moreover,
on your First Appeal a fresh report was received from the principal supplier of information
and deemed PIO i.e. ACP B.K. Road, New Delhi, as per report of ACP B.K. Road your
complaint dated 27.11.2014 was filed on 29.05.2015 (copy of enquiry report is enclosed)."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the
instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant through an email communication dated 08.07.2020 stating the non-payment of gratuity for 6 years from his employer for the period 04.08.2009 to 30.04.2015 in spite of two consecutive orders dated 09.03.2016 and 08.08.2016 by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and another order by the Appellate Authority in favour of the Appellant.
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.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he worked as an Engineer with M/s. Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company" for the sake of brevity) situated at 601, 603, 6th Floor, Akashdeep Building, 26A Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (at a distance of around 100 metres from the Police Station) and dealt with generation, distribution and transmission of electric power. He further stated that, in a nutshell, the subject-matter of the instant case pertains to non-payment of gratuity from 04.08.2009 to 30.04.2015 and that he worked for 69 months but the Company claimed that he has worked for only 50 months. He added that during the aforesaid period, his salary was remitted belatedly and TDS was not filed in a timely manner.
Appellant stated that the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Kasturba Gandhi Marg had heard his Complaints and decided the matters on 09.03.2016 and 08.08.2016 in his favour. But the Company challenged those decisions with the Appellate Authority. He further stated that the legitimate dues that were to be paid to him by the Company have not been paid till date and in this regard, he had even visited the jurisdictional District Magistrate's office, but in vain.
Page 2 of 5Respondent is represented by Shri Sunder Kumar Yadav, PIO/ACP - Hqs through audio conference. He submitted that the Appellant has been informed about the name of the Head Constable who was deputed for serving the arrest warrant.
Appellant interjected to state that the reply of the Respondent is not in consonance with the information sought in the instant RTI Application. He stated that the arrest warrant has not been served on the concerned person and that no FIR has been filed till date. He further stated that the arrest warrant has been issued without mentioning the name of the Director.
Respondent in response to the Appellant's query submitted that Shri Suresh Chander, Head Constable, PS Barakhamba Road was deputed to serve the arrest warrant but whenever he visited the Company, it was found to be locked. He further submitted that, in one instance, the Head Constable was accompanied by the Appellant and when they visited the Company, Shri Ashish Kumar, Field Officer was present in the premises. He added that the Appellant is not even a complainant and is seeking a progress report. Upon being asked as to who had filed the complaint, PIO explained that Shri Deepak Kant and Smt. Gurdip Kaur, Enforcement Officers of EPFO, Regional Office, Delhi (North) had filed a complaint on 27.11.2014 in connection with prosecution under Section 406 and 409 of Indian Penal Code against the Company. He added that in response to the Appellant's query at para no. 5 of the First Appeal, copy of the relevant report dated 29.08.2015 has also been provided to him. He further added that the Director(s) operate from Kolkata and not from Delhi.
Appellant intervened and stated that as per the report regarding warrant of arrest of the Director, M/s. Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. submitted by Shri Suresh Chander, Head Constable, PS Barakhamba Road, it has been categorically mentioned that the Appellant had provided the address of Shri Ashok Chadha, Director, C-554, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi. When the Police went to the premises, Shri Varun, Advocate was present who said that it has been the office of the Advocate General of MP from 2016. Hence the warrant of arrest could not be executed upon the Director of the Company.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on records as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Appellant is emphasising a perceived grievance regarding non-payment of gratuity, not filing an FIR against the Company and not executing the warrant of arrest on the Director of the Company. Commission further observes that the Appellant has also been provided a copy of the enquiry report in pursuance of the complaint dated 27.11.2014.
In view of the foregoing, since the genesis of the instant RTI Application is grievance redressal, which is not within the purview of the Commission's adjudicatory powers, this Bench is not in a position to provide any relief to the Appellant.
Page 3 of 5(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/148098 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.05.2018 seeking progress in the matter of repeated hacking of his email address [email protected] and [email protected] by Skoda (India) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 110001 and Jain Group of Industries Kolkata for the preceding 19 months from the date of filling the instant RTI application.
PIO/Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, vide letter dated 07.06.2018 informed the Appellant that: "...a report has been received from SHO/Preet Vihar and the same is enclosed in which the asked information has been mentioned".
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 20.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 17.07.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant through an email communication dated 08.07.2020 regarding cyber crime i.e. 47 consecutive instances of hacking his email address from 27.09.2016 to 09.12.2016.
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.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the PIO.
Respondent is represented by Shri Virender Kumar Sharma, PIO/ACP-Preet Vihar through audio conference. He submitted that the Appellant was informed that his complaint was sent to the Cyber Cell, East Distt. Delhi and that since technical help/assistance was not received from Yahoo.com, no action was taken.
Appellant interjected to state that he has provided entire details regarding hacking of his email addresses and relevant details such as IP addresses at Annexure 1 and Annexure 3 for which no action has been initiated by the Respondent till date. He alleged that pilferage of data from his email addresses has taken place which calls for immediate action.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the reply of the Respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard, Commission directs the PIO to provide an action taken report from Cyber Crime Cell regarding its investigations/enquiry into the IP addresses provided by yahoo to the Appellant at Annexure 1 and Annexure 3 of his complaint and provide a copy of the same to the Appellant, with a copy marked to the Commission before 31.08.2020, failing which action will be initiated against the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.Page 4 of 5
With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the Second Appeals are disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 5 of 5