Central Information Commission
Mrpawan Singh vs Delhi Police on 20 October, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001834/SB
Dated 20.10.2015
Appellant: Shri Pawan Singh,
S/o Shri. Kartar Singh, R/o Village Mehlana,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Delhi Police, Police Control Room, PHQ,
MSO Building, ITO, Delhi 110 002
Date of Hearing: 20.10.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Pawan Singh filed an application dated 23.05.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police seeking information on two points relating to his dismissal from service including (i) The balance of salary due to him from the year 2000 to till the date of his dismissal in 2002 may be intimated
(ii) whether or not the balance amount of salary was paid to him, and if paid how much was the amount.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.06.2013 provided pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.07.2013 stating that he is not satisfied with the reply. The FAA vide his Order dated 19.08.2013 remanded back the matter to the CPIO to provide correct information to the appellant. The CPIO provided further reply vide letter dated 04.10.2013. Not satisfied by this, the appellant filed second appeal with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Pawan Singh and the respondent Shri Sanjeev Tomar, ACP, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that while he has received information from CPIO (North West) and CPIO (Security), complete information from PCR is yet to be provided. The appellant further submitted that the CPIO has not provided proof of payment made to him.
5. The respondent (PCR) submitted that information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 23.08.2013. The FAA vide order dated 19.08.2013 had directed the CPIO to provide information to the appellant. In compliance of the direction of the FAA due information was provided to the appellant. A copy of the same was also made available to the appellant during the hearing. The respondent submitted that the record relating to reimbursement of payment is not traceable. Hence, they are not able to produce the proof of payment.
Decision:
6. The Commission directs the Appellate Authority, Delhi Police to inquire into the matter and fix responsibility for the loss/misplacement of record relating to reimbursement of payment of the appellant and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/ officials responsible for the loss of the record. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties (Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer