Central Information Commission
Saroj vs Mcd on 11 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2023/121816
Saroj .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Vigilance Department, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, 26th Floor,
Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre, JLN Marg,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.09.2024
Date of Decision : 10.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 27.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 03.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.05.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2023 seeking the following information:
1. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रदीप श्रीवास्तव मुख्य सततकता अधिकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी) सततकता ववभाग ददल्ली नगर ननगम के आदे श संख्या Page 1 of 12 CVO/PC/Vig/ 2008/5964 ददनांक 22.12.2009 की सत्यावपत छायाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे जोकक अपील नं0 124/IN ID No. 2014 पर ददया गया था।
2. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रदीप श्रीवास्तव मुख्य सततकता अधिकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी) सततकता ववभाग ददल्ली नगर ननगम के द्वारा अपील नं0 127/IN ID No. 2015 पर ददये गये आदे श संख्या CVO/PC/Vig/2008/5827 ददनांक 15.12.2009 की सत्यावपत छायाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे
3. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रदीप श्रीवास्तव मुख्य सततकता अधिकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी) सततकता ववभाग ददल्ली नगर ननगम के द्वारा अपील नं0 126/IN ID No. 2012 पर ददये गये आदे श संख्या CVO/PC/Vig/2008/5826 ददनांक 15.12.2009 की सत्यावपत छायाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे
4. कृपया माननीय श्री प्रदीप श्रीवास्तव मुख्य सततकता अधिकारी (प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी) सततकता ववभाग ददल्ली नगर ननगम के द्वारा अपील नं0 128/IN ID No. 2008 पर ददये गये आदे श संख्या CVO/PC/Vig/2008/5825 ददनांक 15.12.2009 की सत्यावपत छायाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे
5. कृपया माननीय श्री मनीश गुप्ता आयुक्त दक्षिणी ददल्ली नगर ननगम द्वारा जारी पत्र संख्या D-168/Com/S.D.M.C./2012 ददनांक 24.07.2012 जोकक श्री महावल ममश्रा सांसद लोकसभा एवं मेरे प्राथतना पत्र के साथ माननीय ननदे शक सततकता ववभाग ददल्ली नगर ननगम को आवश्यक कायतवाही हे तु प्रेवित था। कृपया पत्र पर सततकता ववभाग द्वारा की गई कायतवाही की सत्यावपत छायाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे ।
6. कृपया मेरे द्वारा ददनांक 29.12.2022 एवं ददनांक 17.02.2023 को माननीय मुख्य सततकता अधिकारी, सततकता ववभाग, ददल्ली नगर ननगम को ददये गये आवेदन पत्रों पर की गई कायतवाही की सत्यावपत छायाप्रनत उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे ।
7. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे कक ददल्ली नगर ननगम सततकता ववभाग में कुल ककतने कमतचाररयों / अधिकाररयों के खिलाफ Page 2 of 12 RDA मामले लम्बित है सूची सदहत जानकारी उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे ।
8. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे कक ददल्ली नगर ननगम सततकता ववभाग में कुल ककतने कमतचाररयों / अधिकाररयों के खिलाफ Pending Inquiry के मामले लम्बित है सूची सदहत जानकारी उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे ।
9. कृपया जानकारी उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे कक ददल्ली नगर ननगम सततकता ववभाग में ननबनमलखित अधिकाररयों/कमतचाररयों के खिलाफ ववभागीयें जांच चल रही है या चली है तो उसके पररणाम की जानकारी उपलब्ि कराने की कृपा करे ।
1. श्री इन्द्रजीत कुमार पुत्र श्री शत्रुिन शमात LDC BM ID No. 10095206 RDA No. 01.05.2017
2. श्री सुरेन्द्र मसंह श्री हरर मसंह FWW BM ID No. 1008742 RDA No. 1.05.2017
3. श्री भन्द्तु भीम राव पादिल पुत्र श्री भीमराव िािूराम पादिल (अध्यापक) SIO(P) Case No. 89/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 0271/2017 dated 01.04.2017 Us 379/411-IPC and 147 Indian Railway Act, P.S., New Delhi Railway Station.
4. श्री प्रवेश कुमार पुत्र श्री राजवीर मसंह (िीचर) SIO(P) Case No. 90/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 0388/2017 dated 06.09.2017 U/s 12, POCSCO Act, P.S. छावला
5. श्री अशोक कुमार गुप्ता पुत्र श्री मुसाकफर लाल गुप्ता (िीचर) SIO(P) Case No. 92/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 19/2017, U/s 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC. P.S. SOG- जयपुर राजस्थान
6. श्री रामेश्वर दयाल पुत्र श्री रामजीलाल (PHI) SIO(P) Case No. 93/S10/(P)/Vig/PC/2018 FIR No. 90/2017 dated 23.06.2017 /s 298, 147, 149, 323, 341, 114, 307, 202, 34 IPC P.S. G.R.P फरीदािाद।
7. श्री जगदीश प्रसाद पुत्र श्री सोहन लाल (FW) SIO(P) Case No 91/SIERPNI/PC/2017 FIR No. 0657/2017 dated 24.10.2017 DANA 323, 341.334 (18) 506. 34 IPC P.S. केशय पुत्रम।
8. श्री तोहन लाल पुत्र श्री िज ृ लाल SIOP) Case N (वेलदार) 61/SIO&P)/VI/PC/2016/SDMC/2017 FIR No. 50/2016 dated 03.03.2016 Us 4 r/w 18 POCSCO Act P.S. पालम गांव Page 3 of 12 9 श्री नरे श कुमार पुत्र श्री िालककशन (सफाई कमतचारी) पम्श्चमी िेत्र SIO(P) Case No. 46/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/SDMC FIR No. 469/2014 U/s 302, 307, 147, 149, IPC P.S. िािा हररदास नगर
10. श्री राम चन्द्दर पुत्र श्री भीम मसंह (सफाई कमतचारी) पम्श्चमी िेत्र SIO(P) Case No. 45/S1O/(P)/V/PC/SDMC/2015
11. श्री राजवीर पुत्र श्री िन्द्नुराम (वेलदार) SIO(P) Case No. 75/SIO(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 145/2015 U/s 452. 308. 195A/34 IPC dt.
06.03.2015 P.S. फतेहपुर िेरी
12. श्री सतीश पुत्र श्री रामचरन (सफाई कमतचारी) SIO(P) Case No. 76/S10/(P)/Vig/PC/2017 FIR No. 272/2016 dt. 12.06.2016 U/s 376, 34 IPC
13. श्री नवीन्द्र यादव पुत्र श्री राम िहादरु (िीचर) SIO(P) Case No. 48/SIO/P/Vig/PC/2015 FIR No. 560/2017 dt. 28.07.2014 U/s 302 IPS P.S. रनहौला
14. श्री उमेश मसंह (सफाई कमतचारी) BM ID 51200935, SIO(P) Case No. 31/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2014 FIR No. 365/2013 U/s 304 IPC P.S. नन्द्द नगरी
15. श्री पान मसंह (िीचर) SIO (P) Case No. 2403/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2012/SDMC FIR No. 257/2012 U/s 304-B/498-A/34 IPC P.S. अबिेडकर नगर
16. श्री अरववन्द्द आजाद (िीचर) पम्श्चमी SIO(P)िेत्र Case No. 2334/SIO/(P)/Vig/PC/2011 FIR No. 57/2011 U/s 365 IPC
17. श्री सजीव पुत्र श्री जय मसंह (सफाई कमतचारी) SIO(P) Case No. 72/Vig/ PC/2017/SDMC/06 dt. 03.4.2017 FIR No. 140/2016 dt. 08.05.2016 U/s 392/411/34 IPC P.S. सैक्िर-23 द्वारका
18. श्री नरे न्द्र पुत्र श्री चरन मसंह (ड्राईवर) पम्श्चमी िेत्र SIO(P) Case No. 60/S.LO./(P)/Vig/PC/2016/SDMC FIR No. 238/2014 dt 24.02.2014 U/s 302/IPC P.S. नरे ला.
19. श्री वद् ृ िम मसंह पुत्र श्री िािूलाल (सफाई कमतचारी) SIO (P) Case No. BMS.LO.JP/V/PC/2017 FIR No. 1089/2015.031.07.2015 UN 376 IPC 6 POCSO Act
20. श्री प्रदीप कुमार डागर पुत्र श्री ककशन डागर (सफाई ननरीिक) SIO(P) Case No. 87/S.LO.JPVVg/CB.1./2017/SDMC FIR No. RC DA1-2017-A-0028 dt. 20.07.2017 U/s 7 and 13 (2) r/w-13 (1) of P.C. Act.
Page 4 of 1221. श्री सुिराम मीना (सफाई ननरीिक) Case No. CBI No. 400/2019 P.C. Act 1988 Sec. 7 Rouse Avenue District Court
22. श्री मनीश लाल FIR No. 17/2019 P.S. ACB, POC Act 1988 Sec-7
23. श्री नरे न्द्र मसंह पुत्र श्री. सुलतान मसंह (HC/ZI) S.L.O. (P) Case No. 71/S.LO./(P)/Vig/C.B.1/2017 FIR No. RC-DAI-2017-A-003 U/s 7 of POC Act
24. श्री फतेह चन्द्द पुत्र श्री मुक्तीराम (PHI/VI) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 80/5.1.0./(P)/Vig/C.B.L/SDMC/2017 FIR No. RC-DAI-2017-A-0018 U/s 7&13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) PC Act and 120B IPC
25. श्री अभीराम झों पुत्र श्री कौशर (वेलदार) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 70/S.1.0./(P)/Vig/2016 FIR No. 393/2016 U/s 354/34 IPC P.S. ननहाल ववहार
26. श्री सोमदत्त पुत्र श्री गोिू (चौिरी) उद्यान ववभाग दक्षिणी िेत्र S.LO. (P) Case No. 47/S.1.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.1./2015 dated 01.07.2015
27. श्री लालकृष्ण (उफत अडवानी) पुत्र श्री मेवाराम (कैिल कैचर) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 034/S.1.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.L/2014/SDMC FIR No. R.C.-DAI- 2014-A- 0020 dt. 24.06.2014 U/s 07/CBI/ACB
28. श्री ववजय जादव (जूननयर इन्द्जीननयर) S.L.O. (P) Case No. 30/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.1./2014/SDMC FIR No. R.C.-DA1-2014-A-0012 U/s 8 of PC Act 1988
29. श्री कमल मसंह मीणा पुत्र वरी प्रसाद मीना (A.E.) S.I.O. (P) Case No. 9/S.L.O./(P)/Vig/C.B.1/2013
30. श्री ओमप्रकाश पुत्र श्री रामा (वेलदार) मध्य िेत्र S.I.O. (P) Case No. 50/S.L.O.J/(P)/Vig/ACB/2015 The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 27.03.2023 stating as under:
This is with reference to your RTI application dated 26.02.2023 received in Vigilance Department on 02.03.2023. In this regard, in respect of point No. 01, 02 & 03, as per information received from Legal Cell/concerned unit the information sought falls under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, this is exempted from disclosure.
Further, it is observed that the query is not relating to any specific record and it appears that the applicant is desiring the PIO to go through all the records and gather/sort information from the files. Such compiled information is not available with the PIO. To segregate such information especially when no specific time period has been mentioned, is cumbersome process and will disproportionately divert manpower and Page 5 of 12 resources of the Public Authority merits consideration as the RTI application appears to be roving/fishing enquiry. Moreover, in cases where the investigation/inquiry proceeding is under process and where the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation, the same are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (h), of RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.05.2023, held as under.
The concerned RTI file has been called for from the PIO and the documents available in the file have been perused. It is observed that the appellant had sought information on 40 issues and PIO, Vigilance Department vide letter No. 871 dated 27.03.2023 informed the applicant that the information sought by him is covered under 8 (1) (j) and 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
As regards, query No. 1 to 4, it is observed that the appellant has sought documents which were provided is certain appeal relating to a period more than 8 years old. And it is not feasible to trace out the same as the subject matter of the reference has not been mentioned. Moreover, the appellant has not mentioned who is the appellant in those cases.
As regards, query No. 5, the appellant has sought information pertaining to more than 10 years old record. It is not feasible to trace out the same as on date.
As regards, rest of the query, it is observed that either they are relating to a very old record or relating to information which is restricted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the same relates to third party. However, the PIO is directed to provide a revised reply in respect of query No. 1 to 6 if the same pertains to this appellant within 30 days of this order.
Further, as regards query No. 10, the PIO is directed to provide the information if available or to transfer the RTI application to concerned PIO for providing the requisite information.
With the above directions, the appeal is 'disposed' off.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 6 of 12
Appellant: Shri Bachan Singh, husband and authorized representative of the Appellant present in person.
Respondent: Shri A. Karthikeyan, ADOV & PIO and Shri KDS Tomar, JIO & APIO present in person.
The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date complete and correct information has not been provided to the Appellant.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the representative of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was an employee of the Public Authority but her services were wrongly terminated and information which is related to her has been wrongly denied by the Respondent.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"In this regard, the pointwise submissions are as under:
Point No. 1 to 4:
The appellant through these four points except for mentioning the FAA's order No. relating to the year 2009, has not mentioned the name of the applicant who had preferred the RTI application. If the same is relating to her, the copy of these letters should be with her and if it is relating to some other applicant, it is 3rd party information and covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, although the appellant had not mentioned the name of the RTI applicant, all the records available in the Civic Centre Office were searched and no record relating to the above mentioned issue could be traced. It is also pertinent to mention here that earlier the Vigilance Department was functioning from a Building in Civil Line Zone office and was later shifted to Civic Centre in the year 2010. Subsequently, in the year 2012 Municipal Corporation of Delhi was trifurcated as North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Later on again in the year 2022, the Corporation was unified as a single entity i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Upon trifurcation, the files/records were segregated Corporation wise and then again after unification taken in one fold. However, it emerged that the old records which were at the same were old building and which were beyond the retention period/closed/consigned to Page 7 of 12 record were not shifted to the new building i.e. Civic Centre and in fact all such records which were beyond their retention period/closed were gathered and stacked in almirahs and the rooms were locked. As similar issues relating to old records had come up, it was felt necessary to document the old records/weed out. The matter was taken up 03.03.2023 itself and after approval an official with one peon/helper was posted for making a list of such old records. Also a Committee consisting of three Assistant Directors (including the undersigned) and one Superintendent has been formed and the process of weeding out old records is under process. The scrutiny of old records has already been initiated and all the available old records relating to RTI/First Appeals sorted and scrutinized. There are about 1000 files relating to RTI/First appeals etc. which are yet to be scrutinized and may take 4 more weeks to complete. The appellant had not mentioned the name of the applicant with regard to the points 1 to 4, as such, it has become very difficult in locating the files which is very time consuming and the exercise is being carried out apart from the routine work.
However, keeping in view of the spirit of RTI Act, best efforts are being made to locate the concerned files within 4 weeks and thereafter i.e. by 1st week of October, if the RTI application is related to this appellant, then the attested copy of the FAAs order will be provided to the appellant and in case the same pertains to any other person the same being third party information will be denied as it is covered under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 5:
The information sought is relating to very old record/more than 12 years and moreover in view of above submissions, it is very difficult to trace the movement of the reference. However, keeping in view of the spirit of RTI Act, best efforts are being made to locate the same within 4 weeks and thereafter i.e. by 1st week of October, the status/movement of the reference will be provided to the appellant.
Point No. 6:
The available record/files have been perused and it was observed that the matter is related to a CBI caseNo.94/2019 RC-DAI/A0063/2003 CBI Vs. Jeet Ram filed against certain employees and the said matter is listed for 13.09.2024 for final arguments. The application/representation dated 29.12.2022 and 17.02.2023 have been traced in the connected files.Page 8 of 12
That through Point No.6, the appellant had requested for action taken on his representations dated 29.12.2022 and 17.02.2023. representations were relating to providing the order of SRC meetings dated The said 06.07.2022 and 21.10.2022. In this regard, it is informed that the case was put up in the SRC meeting held on the above mentioned dates and that the same was considered and was ordered to continue suspension. It is also informed that no individual/separate orders were issuedregarding the same.
Point No. 7, 8 & 9:
That through these points, the appellant had requested to provide list of total pending RDA cases; list of total pending Inquiry cases and status of Departmental Inquiry in respect of 30 employees. In this regard it is informed that the information sought falls under the category of personal/information as per judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10045/2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683/2010 titled CPIO/Supreme Court of India Vs Satish Chander Aggarwal. As such they are covered under 8(1)(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the Central Information Commission while deciding the case of Sh. Manoj Arya Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat (File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058) has cited the decision of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande Vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) No.27734/2012) has held under:
"The performance of an employee/Officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information', the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual."
As such the information sought is covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 10:
That through this point, the appellant had requested for information as to whether the 30 employees mentioned by him are in service. The requested information is also an outcome of the departmental cases/police cases or CBI cases registered against them and in view of submission above is personal information and covered under 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 9 of 12
Point No. 11: That through this point, the appellant had requested for information as to whether the outcome of Suspension Review Committee (SRC) is conveyed to the employees. In this regard may kindly refer to point No. 6 above, which is self explanatory.
However, keeping in view of spirit of RTI Act, 2005, the latest information with regard to last two SRC as per available record will be provided to the appellant by 1st week of October"
The Respondent submitted that complete point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Now, at the stage of second appeal, they have placed on record their revised comments on the RTI application of the Appellant.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that if the information sought on point Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application specifically pertains to the Appellant then the same can be provided to her. For this purpose, the Respondent seeks some time to search the relevant records in their previous office/building, record being old in nature.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of complete information by the PIO. The Commission observes that factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant as per her RTI application vide letters dated 27.03.2023 and 04.05.2023.
Now at the stage of appeal, the Respondent has submitted his revised comments on the RTI application of the Appellant. The Respondent further requested the Commission that if the information sought on point Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application specifically pertains to the Appellant then the same can be provided to her. For this purpose, the Respondent seeks some time to search the relevant records in their previous office/building, being old in nature.Page 10 of 12
Further, the said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as a revised reply to the instant RTI application which was not yet shared with the Appellant. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to share their written submissions with the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The Respondent is further directed to search the relevant records in their office with respect to information sought on point Nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application and if the same pertains to the Appellant, then complete information should be provided to her, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the information sought pertains to third party information, then specific reply in this regard should be provided to the Appellant.
With respect to other points of the RTI application, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 11 of 12 Copy To:
The FAA, Director(Vigilance) Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 26th Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.Page 12 of 12
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)