Central Information Commission
Shri Rajender Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation,(Cbi) on 6 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01300 dated 19-10-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rajender Singh
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation,(CBI)
FACTS
By an application of 3-5-2007 Shri Rajinder Singh of Vasant Kunj, Delhi who was Public Prosecutor, CBI, EOU-VI, New Delhi applied to the SP, CBI, EOU-VI, New Delhi seeking the following information comprised of 47 questions:
"4. Copy of memorandum dated 18.4.2007 submitted by the CBI to the Hon'ble Chairman, 6th Pay Commission, New Delhi for pay and allowances for entire staff of CBI.
5. Copy of action taken report, submitted by DCB/ New Delhi to National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi in compliance of its letter dated 29.3.2007 regarding my complaint dated 9.1.2007.
6. Extracts of relevant portion of Noting Sheet of concerned file O/o The Supd. Of Police, CBI, ACB, Silchar in which, my letter dated 31.1.2006 regarding grant of composite transfer grant and cash equivalent to 1/3rd of my entitlement transpiration of baggage, dealt with and the extracts of relevant portion of noting sheet of concerned file in which my fax dated 2.2.2006 regarding said matter dealt with.
7. Extracts of the relevant portion of noting sheet of the concerned file, O/o The Supdt. Of Police, CBI, EOU.VI, New Delhi in which my Travelling Allowance Bill for transfer dated 21.2.2006 dealt with.
8. Extracts of the relevant portion of the noting sheet O/o The Suptd, of Police, CBI, EOU. VI, New Delhi in which my Transfer Application dated 20.3.2006 dealt with.
9. Copy of examination report/ action taken report on my representation dated 5.3.2007 addressed to the Director, CBI, New Delhi in which the case of Raj Kishore Rabidas Vs. State, reported in AIR 1969, Calcutta, Page-321 has been referred.1
10. Copy of examination report/ action taken report on my representation dated 5.3.2007 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pension, (DOPT), New Delhi in which said case of Raj Kishore Rabidas Vs. State, reported in AIR 1969, Calcutta Page-321 has been referred.
11. Copy of examination report/ action taken report on my representation dated 5.3.2007 addressed to the Director of Prosecution, CBI, New Delhi in which the said case of Raj Kishore Rabidas Vs. State, reported in AIR 1969, Calcutta Page 321 has been referred.
12. Copy of action taken report at point no. 5 of my said representation mentioned at Para 9 dated 5.3.2007 sent to the Dy. Inspector General of Police /ACR/CBI/Patna/ Bihar vide no. 2099/A-20/R-46/PF/2006/EOII/CBI/New Delhi dated 14.3.2007.
13. Copy of action taken report at point no. 7 of my said representation mentioned at para 9 dated 5.3.2007 sent to the Dy. Inspector of Police/ ACR/CBI/Guwahati/ Assam vide no. 2097/A-20/R-46/PF/2006/EO.II/CBI/New Delhi dated 14.3.2007.
14. Copies of memos, which were drafted/ prepared by Head office, CBI, New Delhi on the basis of complaints, sent by Shri P. D. Meena, the then SPI/ CBI/ACB/Silchar and they were sent to Shri J. S. Tarang the then DLA, CBI, RO, Kolkata to serve on me.
15. Copy of my representation dated 4.4.2006 which was diarised at Sl. No. 276 on 10.4.2006 in the office of Directorate of Prosecution, CBI, New Delhi and copy of orders of DOP/CBI/ New Delhi on the said representation.
16. Signed copy of each page of Memorandum no.
221/11/2005-AVD-II dated 25.8.2005 served on me on 25.10.2005.
17. Copy of Office Memorandum no. 11013/2/2004-Estt (A) dated 10.2.2004 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DOPT), New Delhi.
18. Copy of comments of the concerned SP/DIG regarding para 6 to 10 of my complaint dated 7.11.2006 forwarded by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DOPT, New Delhi vide their letter No. 258/6/2007-AVD, II dated 12.3.2007 (CBI ID No. DP/PERS.I/2007/762/3/23/98 (Pt.) dated 3.4.2007 is referred).2
19. Copy of Log Book dated 10.5.2003 of all office vehicles, maintained in the O/o the Supdt. Of Police/ CBI/ACB/ Ranchi.
20. Copy of Log Book dated 10.5.2003 of all the office vehicles, maintained in the office of Suptd. Of Police, CBI, AHD, Ranchi.
21. Copy of Log Book dated 10.5.2003 of all the office vehicles, maintained in the office of DIG/CBI/ACB/RO/Ranchi.
22. Copy of my complaint dated 16.10.2003 under the subject: regarding discrimination between the Schedule Caste and General Caste employees, addressed to the Supdt of Police, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, which was received by Shri Raghdu Nath Jhan, LDC, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad.
23. Copy of action taken report on my said complaint referred in para 22.
24. I had sent a letter to the Supdt of Police, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad with transaction no. 2433 dated 19.1.2004 of Head Post Office, DHN regarding discrimination among the Schedule Caste and General Caste employees. Copy of action taken report on said complaint.
25. Details of Departmental action initiated against the delinquent officers in terms of explanation to Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DOPT) Order No. 11013/2/2004-Estt (A) dated 10.2.2004 (Para 23 and 24 are referred).
26. Copy of my representation dated 3.9.2003 with reference to No. NIL/3/8(A)/93-D/RR dated 31.8.2003 received by Shri Raghu Nath, LDC, CBI, Dhanbad addressed to DIG, CBI, RO., Ranchi.
27. Copy of relevant portion of crime file in case RC 8(A)/93(D) in which said representation referred in para 26 dealt with.
28. Copy of disclosure reports in RC 1(A)/2000,RC 1(S)/2003 and RC 1(S)/2004-CBI/SCB/LKO.
29. Copy of recommendations of IO/SP/DIG/JD/ Special Directors /APP/PP/Sr/PP/ DLA/ALA/DOP in RC 1(S)/2000-CBI/SCB/LKO.3
30. Copy of recommendations of IO/SP/DIG/JD/ Additional Directors /APP/PP/Sr/PP/ DLA/ALA/DOP in RC 1(S)/03 and RC 1(S)/04-CBI/SCB/LKO.
31. Copy of cognizance orders in RC 1(S)/2000, RC-1(S)/03 and RC-1(S)/04-CBI/SCB/LKO.
32. Copy of disclosure reports in RC 6/95 and RC 8/2005- CBI/EOU V, New Delhi.
33. Copy of recommendations of IO/SP/DIG/JS/ Special Directors or Additional Directors/ APP/PP/Sr. PP/DLA/ALA/DOP in RC 6/95 and RC 8/05-CBI, EOU V New Delhi.
34. copy of cognizance orders in RC 6/95 and RC 8/05- CBI/EOU V, new Delhi.
35. Copy of my complaint dated 17.10.2003 against Shri R. N. Das, the then SR. PP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad under subject regarding misconduct committed by the Sr. PP submitted to the office of Suptd of Police, CBI, ACB, DHN on 17.10.2003.
36. Copy of action taken report the said complaint dated 17.10.2003 complaint, mentioned at Para 35.
37. In response of No. NIL/3/8(A)/93-D/RR dated 31.8.2003, I have sent a letter to DIG/ CBI/Ranchi Region, Ranchi through the SP/CBI/SPE/Dhanbad which was acknowledged by Shri Raghu Nath Jhan, LDC, CBI, ACB, DHN on 3.9.2003. Copy of said letter and action taken report on said letter.
38. Copy of CBI, HO, Letter No. 5/5/93-IWSU dated 6.7.1994.
39. Copy of DOP&T letter No. 207/2/93-AVD II dated 1.7.1994.
40. Copy of my transfer T. A. Advance Application dated 6.4.2004, submitted to the Supdt. Of Police, CBI, ACB, Silchar.
41. Copy of nothing Sheet of the relevant portion of the concerned file in which ,said transfer TA Advance application was dealt with.
42. Copy of DSPIL/2004/2561/A/24/9/2004 dated 27.4.2004.
43. Copy of Earned Leave application of mine, dated 1.6.2004, submitted to the SP/CBI/ACB/ Silchar.4
44. Copy of letter vide which, my said EL application was sent to sr. PP/CBI/ACB/Guwahati by the SP/CBI/ACB/ Silchar.
45. Copy of the letter vide which, my said EL application was sent to DLA/CBI/ACB/RO, Kolkatta by the SR. PP/ CBIACB, Guwahati.
46. Copy of office order no.111/2004 dated 23.6.2004, O/o The SP/ CBI/ACB, Silchar.
47. Copy of my Annual statement of General Provident Fund Account No. CBI/ND/7880 for year 2005-06 and 2006-07.
48. Copy of TA Bill, submitted to the office of the Supdt of Polcie, CBI/ ACB, Navi Mumbai after attending programme on Introduction to Computer application from 27.11.2000 to 29.11.2000 conducted at Old JNU Campus, New Delhi, which has not been passed so far. Please verify from Railway Warrants counterfoil of the year 2000 because two/ R/W were issued to me to perform journey from Bombay to New Delhi and back.
49. Copy of file notings and copy of each page of my personal file/ separate file, maintained by the PA to the Supdt of Police CBI/ ACB, Silchar, keep in mind that I am not seeking information from my personal file, which was maintained in the Establishment Section, O/o the SP/ CBI/ACB/ Silchar.
50. Period for which information asked for last 14 years."
In a response of 27-6-07 SP CBI, Dhanbad to whom the application was forwarded on 7-6-07 replied as per the following chart to 8 questions:
Para Copy of my complaint dated 16.10.2003 regarding No. discrimination between the Schedule Caste and General 22 Caste employees, addressed to the Supdt of Police, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, which was received by Shri Raghdu Nath Jha, LDC, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad.
Reply The complaint dated 16.10.2003 of the applicant was not received in the Branch. As on date this complaint is not appearing in the records of this office. The Receipt Register will be shown to you, if needed.
Para Copy of action taken report on the applicant's complaint
No. referred in para 22.
23
5
Reply Complaint along with the action taken report, if any, is not appearing in the records of this office.
Para The applicant had sent a letter to the Supdt of Police, CBI, No. ACB, Dhanbad with transaction no. 2433 dated 19.1.2004 of 24 Head Post Office, DHN regarding discrimination among the Schedule Caste and General Caste employees. Copy of action taken report on said complaint.
The letter dated 19.1.2004 of the applicant was received in Reply the Branch which was diarised vide diary No. 46 dated 20.1.2004 by Sri Raghu Nath Jha, LDC, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad. This letter is not appearing in the record of this office. The Receipt Register will be shown to you, if needed. Para Details of Departmental action initiated against the No. delinquent officers in terms of explanation to Ministry of 25 Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DOPT) Order No. 11013/2004-Estt (A) dated 10.2.2004 (Para 23 and 24 are referred).
Reply The aforesaid letter of the applicant alongwith action taken report, if any, are not appearing in the records of this office. Para Copy of relevant portion of crime file in case RC 8(A)/93(D) No. in which said representation referred in para 26 dealt with.
27Information with regards to Para No. 27 of the applicant Reply relates to the office of the DIG, CBI, RR, Ranchi. This fat is being brought to the notice of the DIG, CBI, RR, Ranchi. However, the Crime File of RC 8 (A)/93-D will be made available to you for inspection, if needed.
Para Copy of my complaint dated 17.10.2003 against Shri R. N. No. Das, the then SR. PP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad regarding 35 misconduct committed by the Sr. PP submitted to the office of Suptd of Police, CBI, ACB, DHN on 17.10.2003.
The complaint dated 17.10.2003 of the applicant, if any, Reply against Shri R. N. Das, the then Sr. PP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, was not received by the Branch. As on date this complaint is not appearing in the records of this office. The receipt Register will be shown to you, if needed.
Para Copy of action taken report to the complaint dated
No. 17.10.2003.
36
reply The records of this office does not show any action taken report against complaint dated 17.10.2003. Para In response of No. NIl/3/8(A)/93-D/RR dated 31.8.2003, the 37 applicant has sent a letter to DIG/ CBI/Ranchi Region, Ranchi through the SP/CBI/SPE/Dhanbad which was acknowledged by Shri Raghu Nath Jhan, LDC, CBI, ACB, DHN on 3.9.2003.
6The receipt register of this office does not show the receipt of this letter. The Receipt Register will be shown to you, if needed.
Not satisfied Shri Rajender Singh moved his first appeal before Shri A K. Singh, DIG (Police) CBI/ACB/RR, Ranchi praying that the CPIO may please be directed to furnish the information requested for. In the five grounds for appeal, however, only the following two are actually requests for information, the remaining being exxcoriation at the manner of functioning of the CBI, a mater outside the purview of the RTI Act 2005:
"8.2 That as regards to Para 7.5 and 7.6 it is submitted that my letter dated 19.1.2004 has been diarized at SL No. 46 on 20.1.2004, which is missing from the official records of the office of the CPIO the CPIO has not indicated as to who is responsible for missing the said letter. In this way the CPIO has failed to maintain the devotion to duty by not making any inquiry for missing the said letter from the official records of the office of the CPIO.
8.3 That as regard to Para 7.9, 7.10 & 7.011 it is submitted that the information, requested for, related to the office of the CPIO the office of the DIG/CBI/RR, Ranchi does not concern. The CPIO is legally obliged to furnish the information sought for."
Nevertheless, first Appellate Authority Shri A.K. Singh in his extensive order of 26-8-07 has gone into the merits of each point raised and has directed the CPIO to check receipt of complaints in some cases, to conduct an enquiry and fix responsibility in others. In compliance Shri R.N. Azad, SP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad has sent appellant a response as per the following chart on 25-9-07:
Q. Contents Decision of Appellate Authority Reply of CPIO (i.e. NO. (i.e. DIG, CBI, RR, Ranchi) SP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad) 22 The applicant The appellant has submitted that The Receipt &23 has requested CPIO has not denied the facts Register was for information thatcom0plaint dated 16.10.03 was checked and it was of copy of his not received by Shri Raghu Nath found that the said complaint dated Jha, LDC. CPIO ha explained that complaint has been 16.10.03 under his reply is based on after cross received in the the subject, checking the receipt register for branch but the copy 'regarding' regd/ speed post letters and receipt of the complaint is discrimination letters received by post. It appears not available.
between that applicant had submitted a Branch is Scheduled complaint dated 16.10.03 to SP, conducting an 7 Castes and CBI, Dhanbad and has reflected that enquiry to fix the General castes said letter was received by Shri responsibility for employees Raghu Nath Jha, LDC. Hence, it missing of the copy addressed to appears that applicant had of the complaint. SP, CBI, ACB, submitted complaint to the branch Dhanbad which directly and such letters may find was received by entry into general receipt registers or Shri Raghu register meant for receipt of Nath Jha, LDC, complaints. Hence, CPIO is directed CBI, Dhanbad to check the receipt of the said and a copy of complaint in other register action taken maintained with branch and report on the thereafter, a suitable reply to the said complaint. applicant.
24 The applicant As CPIO has accepted that letter The copy of the has requested sent by applicant through post was complaint was for copy of received in the office and was received, however, action taken on diarized vide no. 46 dated 20.1.04 it is not available in the said but the letter is not appearing in the the records of the complaint sent record of the office. CPIO is branch. Branch is by the applicant directed to get an enquiry conducted conducting an to the SP, CBI, and responsibility be fixed for enquiry to fix the Dhanbad with missing of the said complaint. responsibility for transaction no. missing of the copy 2433 dated of the complaint.
19.1.04 of Head
Post Office
Dhanbad
regarding
discrimination
among the SC
employee.
25 The applicant The applicant had not requested for Till date no enquiry
was requested copy of the said letter but he had was held hence
for details of requested details of departmental taking details of
departmental action initiated against the departmental action
action initiated delinquent officers in terms of initiated against the
against the referred letter hence an appropriate delinquent officer
delinquent reply be sent. does not arise.
officers in terms
of explanation to
Ministry of
Personnel,
Public
Grievances and
Pension (DOPT)
Order No.
11013/2/2004-
Estt (A) dated
10.2.304.
8
27 The applicant It appears that para 26 and 27 are Letter dated 3.9.03
has requested inter related with each other but as of the applicant
for copy of para 26 has not been transferred to addressed to DIG,
relevant portion the branch hence reply of para 27 CBI, RR, Ranchi
of crime file in does not appear to be complete. was forwarded vide
case RC 8 The appellant has requested for this office letter No.
(A)/93-D in copy of his representation dated 5115/3/8(A)/93(D)
which said 3.9.03 and copy of relevant portion dated 16.9.03 .
representation of crime file of RC 8 (A)/93-D where The relevant
referred in para referred representation was dealt portion of the Diary
26 dealt with. with. Hence, CPIO should give reply No. 79 of dated
accordingly. 21.3.03 Court Diary
No. 81 of dated
28.4. 03 are
regarding
representation
21.4.03 of Shri
Rajendra Singh,
then PP, alongwith
observation DIG,
CBI, RR, Ranchi
dated 31.8.03
Which are part of
case pending in the
court. Hence,
CPIO clause
exemption u/s 8 (1)
(h) of RTI Act 2005
for not providing the
documents/
information
inspection of crime
file also to
appellant.
35 The applicant CPIO has explained that his reply is The Receipt
& has requested based on after cross checking the Registers of
36 for coy of his receipt register for regd/ speed post relevant period has
complaint dated letters and receipt letters received by been check which
17.10.2003 post. It appears that applicant had do not show any
against Shri R. submitted a complaint dated regarding receipt of
N. Das, the then 17.10.03 to SP, CBI, Dhanbad complaint 17.10.03
Sr. PP CBI, against Shri R. N. Das, the then SR. from the appellant.
ACB, Dhanbad PP, hence, it appears that applicant
under the had submitted complaint to the
subject branch directly and such letters may
regarding find entry into general receipt
misconduct registers and register meant for
committed by receipt of complaints. Hence, CPIO
SR. PP and is directed to check the receipt of the
copy of action said complaint in other register
9
taken report in maintained with the branch and
the said thereafter, a suitable reply am be
complaint. sent to the appellant.
37 The applicant The appellant has submitted that The Receipt
has requested CPIO has not denied the facts his Register is showing
for copy of letter letter dated 3.9.03 was not received entry regarding
sent to DIG, by Shri Raghu Nath Jha, LDC, receipt of letter
CBI, Ranchi CPIO has explained that his reply is 3.9.03 which was
through SP, based on after cross checking the forwarded DIG,
CBI, Dhanbad receipt register for regd/ speed post CBI, RR, Ranchi
and letters and receipt letters received by vide office letter No.
acknowledged post. It appears that applicant had 5115/3/8(A) dated
by Shri Raghu submitted a letter dated 3.9.03 16.9.03. Action Nath Jha on addressed to DIG, CBI, RR through taken report any is 3.9.03 against SP, CBI, Dhanbad and the said not appearing in the the response letter was received by Shri Raghu file of the branch. No. Nil. Nath Jha, LDC. Hence, it appears /3/8(A)/93-D/RR that applicant had submitted a letter dated 31.8.03 to the branch directly and such and action taken letters may find entry into general report on the receipt registers or in the concerned said letter. crime file. Hence, CPIO is directed to check the receipt of the said letter in other register maintained with branch concerned crime file and thereafter, a suitable reply may be sent to the appellant.
Appellant has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"12.1 That the CPIO may please be directed to furnish the information requested for vide para 22, 24, 26, 27, 35 & 37 of the application dated 3.5.2007.
12.2 that disciplinary action against the CPIO under the service rules may please be recommended for destruction of information which were the subject of the request, sought by para 22 and 24 of the application.
12.3 That the disciplinary action against the CPIO under the service rules may please be recommended to deny the request for information malfidely which were requested vide para 26 and 27 of the application.
12.4 That the penalty may please be imposed against the CPIO to furnish false information regarding para 35 of the application because the CPIO has informed that my complaint dated 17.10.2003 against Shri R. N. Das, 10 then SR. PP/CBI/ACB, Dhanbad who was committed misconduct, not received by the office of the CPIO.
12.5 That the penalty may please be imposed against the CPIO to furnish false information regarding para 37 of the application that the receipt register of the office of the CPIO does not show the receipt of the letter dated 3.9.2003 Of the 46 questions asked, therefore, appellant Shri Rajender Singh is dissatisfied with the responses to six. The appeal was, therefore, heard through Video Conference on 6-2-2009. The Following are present.
Appellant (at CIC Studio Delhi) Shri Rajender Singh Respondents Shri S. K. Peshin, SP, CBI, Delhi.
Shri V.P. Arya, SP, CBI, Dhanbad. (at CIC Studio, Dhanbad) Shri A. K. Singh, DIG, CBI, Ranchi.(at CID Studio Jharkhand) Shri Rajender Sing submitted written arguments in which he has addressed the responses received from the CPIO and his own submission as follows:
Q. Order of CPIO Order of FAA Reply of CPIO Submissions of NO. dated 27.6.07 dated 24.8.07 dated 25.9.07 appellant to the decision of FAA dated 24.8.07 22 Complaint dated CPIO was The CPIO The information 16.10.03 was directed to check responded that which was the not received in the receipt the inquiry is subject of the the office of register and being conducted request was CPIO thereafter a to fix the destroyed to shield suitable reply be responsibility for Shri R. N. Das, the sent to the missing the then Sr. PP, CBI, appellant. com-plaint ACB, DHN who did dated 16.10.03. not appear in the Court on 30.9.03 nor did he apply for CL for the date 10.1.03, whereas salary was paid to him for these dates.
24 Letter dated CPIO was The CPIO Do
19.1.04 was directed to get an responded that
received in the enquiry the office of the
office of CPIO conducted to fix CPIO is
11
but it is not responsibility for conducting an appearing in the missing the letter inquiry to fix the records of the dated 19.1.04. responsibility for office of CPIO. missing the complaint dated 19.1.04.
26 The CPIO The CPIO was The CPIO The exemption is & responded that directed to give claimed not claimable. The 27 reply to question appropriate reply. exemption u/s 8 CPIO claimed No. 26 & 27 (1) (h) under the exemption only to relate to the RTI Act. shield Shri B. B. office of FAA Mishra, the then hence it is being Dy. Inspector brought in the General of Police notice of FAA. CBI/ ACB Ranchi, Region Ranchi who prescribed me to favour the accused person in under trial case RC No. 20 (a)/ 95 (DHN). 35 The complaint The CPIO was The CPIO The information dated 17.10.03 directed to check responded that which was the against Shri R. receipt register receipt register subject of the N. Das was not thereafter a do not show any request was received in the suitable reply be entry regarding destroyed only to office of CPIO. sent to the receipt of shield Shri R. N. appellant. complaint dated Das, the then SR. 17.10.03. PP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad who did not appear in any case/ court on 12, 13, 14.5.2003 and 8.8.2003 whereas salary for these dates was paid to him. 37 The CPIO The CPIO was The CPIO FAA has yet not responded that directed to check responded that responded the receipt register the receipt of the receipt register request only to of the office of letter dated 3.9.03 showing an shield Shri B. B. the CPIO does and there after a entry regarding Mishra, thethen Dy. not show the reply be sent to receipt of the Inspector General receipt of the the appellant. letter dated of Police, Ranchi, letter dated 3.3.2009 which Region Ranchi who 3.9.03. was forwarded prescribed me to to the office of favour the accused FAA on 16.9.03. persons in under trial case C No. 20 (a)/95/D. 12
We have also examined the issues point-wise in the hearing. On question at No 22 SP CBI, Dhanbad Shri V.P. Arya submitted that by his application of 19-1-2004 submitted in continuation of the complaint of 16-10-
2003 appellant Shri Rajender Singh has withdrawn his complaint through a letter of 22-1-2004. This also disposes of point No. 24.
Regarding question Nos. 26 and 27 CPIO Shri V.P. Arya submitted that the case at present is subjudice and disclosing the information sought by appellant including a copy of his own representation will be against the interest of justice.
With regard to question Nos. 35 and 37 Shri Arya submitted that the complaint had not been received and if appellant is able to submit any receipt he will renew his effort to trace the record. The question at point No. 37 is also related to the application of 3-9-03 and, therefore, answered in response to question No. 26.
Appellant Shri Rajender Singh submitted that he had indeed withdrawn the complaint of 16.10.03 on 22.1.'04 but the complaint was never returned to him, the copy of which he is now seeking. He also admitted that he does have a copy of representation of 3-9-03 but he has sought the information because he wishes to know the noting made on it and the manner of its disposal. He also submitted that this information has not been submitted to the trial court and, therefore, has no bearing on the prosecution of the case.
Finally, Shri Rajender Singh submitted that CBI is not in the practice of providing receipts to applications, hence he is not in possession of any receipt of the application of 3-9-03, but has supplied a copy, whereas he is aware of the fact that an enquiry was conducted in this matter.
DECISION NOTICE Having heard the arguments and examined records we hereby direct as follows:
13i) Notwithstanding that the complaint of 16-10-03 submitted by complainant Shri Rajender Singh has subsequently been withdrawn or not, CPIO Shri Arya has in compliance with the directions of 1st Appellate Authority checked the receipt register and found that complaint had been received but is no longer available. Although he has mentioned that enquiry to fix the responsibility with this is being conducted we have not been told of any conclusion. Misplacement of official records without explanation is a serious breach of administrative responsibility.
The DIG, CBI Shri AK Singh is directed to take serious note of this report, fix responsibility and take suitable action against the delinquent official. On the other hand, if a copy of the complaint has been traced, this may be supplied forthwith to appellant Shri Rajender Singh. This exercise will be completed within 15 days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
ii) On the question of exemption from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h) sought by CPIO with regard to question Nos. 26 and 27, this objection had not been upheld by 1st Appellate Authority Shri A.K. Singh, DIG, as he has explained in the hearing. Besides if the representation on the basis of which the matter is now under prosecution is not the property of the Court, it becomes the duty of the public authority that is holding the information to provide the same u/s 2 (j). In this context the CPIO will now take action as per the ruling of Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 3114/2007 in case of Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner in which Ravinder Bhat J has ruled as follows:
12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society, information and access to information holds the key to resources, benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy.
By one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official barriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in the possession of the state and public 14 agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
13 Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right self. Under Section 8,exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information, the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information.
For the above reasons this information will be provided to appellant Shri Rajender Singh within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
iii) Since there is no receipt and no other documentary evidence to support the fact that the application of 3-9-03 has, in fact, been received by the then CPIO, SP, CBI, ACB, we cannot see any grounds for our interference in the response provided by CPIO with regard to question Nos. 35 and 37.
With this the appeal is allowed in part. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 6-2-2009 15 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 6-2-2009 16