Central Information Commission
Prem Prakash Prajapati vs Delhi Police on 21 October, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/128622.
Shri PREM PRAKASH PRAJAPATI. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Delhi Police.
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024
Date of Decision : 14.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.12.2022
PIO replied on : 20.01.2023
First Appeal filed on : 28.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 02.05.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 17.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. The statement of all personal whose statement was recorded for inquiry purchase.
2. Copy of the report and comment prepared by Inquiry Officer.
3. Copy of the comments of Assistant Commissioner of Police.
4. Copy of the comments and recommendations of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer North."
The CPIO, Addl. DCP-I, Outer North District vide letter dated 20.01.2023 replied as under:-
"As per record, complaint of the applicant was received in this office vide Dy. No. 13252/C/DCP/OND dated 28.09.2022. The enquiry on above complaint was conducted by SI Vikash Yadav. As per enquiry report, complainant alleged in this complaint that Kalandra u/s 107 /150 CrPC was prepared by IO ASI Rajmal. Alleged by that he was not present on the spot as mentioned in the Kalandra. During enquiry it was found that complainant Prem Prakash Parjapati was present in the Hospital. Hence, allegation found true. Kalandra has already been decided by SEM Court as bound down both the parties. However other allegation levelled in the complaint could not be proved. Suitable departmental action is recommended by ACP/PG/OND Page 1 of 3 against ASI Rajmal and Addl. DCP-I/OND has directed HAP/OND to issue SCN to ASI Rajmal. Copies of statements recorded during enquiry and enquiry report could not be provided u/s 8(1) (g) and 8(1) (j) of RTI Act- 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2023. The FAA, DCP, Outer North District vide order dated 02.05.2023 stated as under:-
"Now, the appellant has filed an appeal that he is not satisfied with the reply given in response to the RTI filed by him. As per record, the correct reply of RTI has already been provided to the appellant vide this office letter No. dated 130/ID No. 2008/22/RTI Cell/OND, dated 20.01.2023. Now, the copy of the RTI reply is being provided to the appellant alongwith the order. Accordingly, with these observations, the appeal is disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Kamal Singh, ACP & CPIO The Appellant had lodged a complaint against the official of Alipur police Station in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer North. Subsequently, an RTI was filed by the Appellant seeking information such as statement of all personal whose statement was recorded for inquiry, copy of the report ,comment prepared by inquiry Officer. Copy of the comments of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Copy of the comments and recommendations of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer North.
The CPIO in response to the RTI denied from disclosing the information sought under section 8 (1)& 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,2005.
During the hearing the Appellant contended that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO.
The CPIO on the other hand in his oral submissions reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and further drew attention of the Commission towards the written submission dated 10.10.2024 that a fresh report has been obtained from HAP, HAC, PG Cell and as per report, as SHO/Alipur through ACP Sub Division Samaypur Badli, Outer North District. regards Point No.01 to 04, the appellant alleged in the complaint that Kalandra U/s 170/150 CrPC was prepared by IO ASI Rajmal against the appellant whereas the appellant was not present on the spot of incident. Moreover, the appellant gave many complaints in this regard but SI Sachin filed the same favouring ASI Rajmal and HC Narender. During enquiry, it is found that appellant was in the Hospital at that time. Hence, allegations levelled by the appellant was found true. Kalandra has already been decided by SEM Court to bound down both the parties. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice for censure was issued to ASI Rajmal and after giving a verbal warning to remain careful in future, the same was filed by Addl. DCP-I/OND, Delhi vide this office order dated 05.04.2023. However, other allegations levelled in the complaint against SI Sachin could not be proved and the asked documents (i.e. statement of all personal during Page 2 of 3 enquiry, report of IO, comments of ACP & DCP) could not be provided as per Section 8 (1) g & j of RTI Act-2005 due to security reason and being 3rd party information respectively.
Decision:
Upon the perusal of the case records and the submissions made by the parties. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide the information regarding the statement of all personal whose statement was recorded for inquiry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and to send the compliance report of this order within 01 week thereafter. However, in doing so the CPIO must ensure that information like name, designation of the officer and any other information which is exempted from disclosure under section 8 & 9 RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted/blacked out under section 10 of the RTI Act,2005 prior to the said disclosure.
In the light of above directions to the CPIO, the Commission does not find any further merits for the intervention.
Appeal stands disposed off.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)