Central Information Commission
Sompal Singh vs Delhi Fire Services on 11 November, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DLFSR/A/2022/614660-UM
Mr. Sompal Singh
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi Fire Services,
GNCTD, Headquarter Connaught Place,
New Delhi- 110001
प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.11.2022
Date of Decision : 11.11.2022
Date of RTI application 20.12.2021
CPIO's response 18.01.2022
Date of the First Appeal 19.01.2022
First Appellate Authority's response 15.02.2022
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.03.2022
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 01 point, as under:-
The CPIO, Delhi Fire Services, vide letter dated 18.01.2022 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 15.02.2022 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of CPIO.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr. S P Bharadwaj Divisional officer DFS, Present in Person The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that wrong and misleading reply has been given to him. Despite the assurance given to him to furnish the information, during the hearing of the first appeal the Respondent authority failed to send anything via speed pos, he stated. When queried about the reason of asking the information he deposed that reservation criteria for the ex-servicemen is not categorically mentioned in the Delhi Fire Service recruitment rules and he is himself adversely affected in this case.
The respondent submitted that the information is available on the DFS website. He further said that the matter of providing reservation to the ex-servicemen is a policy matter which is to be dealt by hon'ble LG. He informed that they have provided age relaxation to the Appellant.
The Appellant stated that point wise information on the RTI Application is required as the reply given to him was wrong.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to either search and furnish correct point wise information to the Appellant strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the personal details of the third parties.
If the CPIO is not able to give the point wise and complete information he should furnish an affidavit to the Commission and a copy to the Appellant, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability or confidentiality of the Information, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. In the case of the CPIO filing a wrong affidavit, the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] द्वदनांक / Date: 11.11.2022