Central Information Commission
Rajendra Singh Parihar vs Cbi on 2 February, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2021/125501
Rajendra Singh Parihar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti-Corruption Branch, RTI Cell,
14th& 15th Floor, 2nd MSO Building,
Nizam Palace, 234/4, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Kolkata - 700020. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/12/2021
Date of Decision : 28/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 31/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 21/04/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 10/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/06/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2021 seeking the following information pertaining to concerning procedure followed by CBI to grant approval to extend time limit beyond 2 years, prescribed time limit for investigating a Regular Case of Disproportionate assets, upto 6 years of filing SC-07/20 dated 19.08.20 arising out of Case No. RC/14/14 dated 31.05.2014 currently pending adjudication before the Learned, 1st C.B.I. SPECIAL COURT AT ALIPORE, KOLKATA.
"..........Case: CBI Kolkata zone filed FIR and instituted RC case No RC0102014A0014 dated 31.05.2014 with allegation of Disproportionate Assets of Rs. 45,60,713/- under IPC section 109 & PC Act 13(2) r/w, 13(1)(e) against Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar, Chief Engineer, Railways, Smt. Seema Parihar (wife), Sri. Rohit Singh Parihar (son) both Director of m/s NewTrek Materials Pvt Ltd. based on a source complaint. CBI froze savings bank accounts, PPF accounts and seized insurance policies of Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar, Smt. Seema Parihar, Sri Rohit Singh Parihar and Miss Archana Singh Parihar(daughter) on 07.06.2014. Further, CBI also seized the property deeds of Smt. Seema Parihar on the same date.
CBI-Kolkata zone then did an investigation for long 6 years and submitted Final report/ charge sheet no. 07/2020 on 19th August, 2020, after lapse of 6 years, in 1st CBI Special Court, Alipore, Kolkata and escalated the allegation of possessing DA to Rs. 86,07,637.21/-against Shri Rajendra Singh Parihar & Smt. Seema Parihar. CBI excluded shri Rohit Singh Parihar from commission of aforesaid offence beyond reasonable doubt.
CBI continued to keep bank accounts, PPF accounts, insurance policies, property deeds frozen & seized till date. Shri Rajendra Singh Parihar is now retired and has responsibilities to perform. Keeping bank accounts and PPF accounts frozen and keeping vital insurance documents seized and property deeds seized is causing undue hardship to the Parihar family who have responsibilities to be performed. It is the right of Sri. Rajendra Singh Parihar & Smt. Seema Parihar to make use of their hard-earned money of hard work done in last 3 decades for their living, for performing responsibilities, for planning the growth and better living of the family, for ensuring good running of business of Smt. Seema Parihar. An allegation alone, without proving the crime, shall not give right / liberty to CBI to play with the lives of human beings to seize the earnings of 3 decades of hard work of a family! CBI has no specific particular reason to keep the savings bank account, PPF account frozen and insurance policies and property deeds seized for 6 long years. Denial of legitimate use of hard-earned money of a family of their life 2 long labour of 3 decades is encroachment on the right to life of the Parihar family guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
As right to life of Parihar family is violated, following information is sought under RTI Act regarding procedures followed by CBI in conducting the investigation for 6 long years in RC case no. RC0102014A0014 dated 31.05.2014. Please provide the following information duly certified under the hand and seal of the Authorized Officer of your Office:
1. Are there any instructions under which the IO's of CBI are permitted to steer away from the Standard Operating Procedure / Guidelines prescribed in the CBI (Crime) Manual 2005 amended upto date. If there are any, please specify them individually.
2. The prescribed time limit for the completion of investigation & submission of Final Report in complicated cases like those of disproportionate assets in terms of Clause 14.39 specified in the CBI (Crime) Manual, 2005 "Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
For RC case No. RC0102014A0014 dated 31.05.2014, whose Final Report 07/2020 was submitted to the Learned 1st CBI Special Court, Alipore, Kolkata in Aug 2020--
(i) Please specify instructions in this regard that permit granting of extensions beyond 2 years prescribed in para 14.39 of CBI (Crime) manual.
(ii) Please specify how many extensions were granted to carry on the investigation for submitting Final Report beyond one and half year prescribed in para 14.39 of CBI (Crime) manual.
(iii) And in each such extension please specify the Supervisory Authority who granted such extensions beyond the initial prescribed period of one and half year.
(iv) Please provide the file notings/documents/correspondence between the relevant authorities for each of such extensions sought and/or granted to bring out the reasons of granting extensions beyond laid down prescribed time.
33. Clause 14.39 of CBI (Crime) Manual, 2005 categorically states that "the time limit for filing of charge sheet shall be 15 days from the date of receipt of sanction for prosecution from the Competent Authority except in complicated cases Involving voluminous documents where the said time-limit could be one month." CBI-Kolkata zone submitted Final Report/charge sheet no. 07/2020 on 19th August, 2020 i.e. after lapse of 6 years of filing RC case No. RC0102014A0014 dated 31.05.2014 in CBI Special Court, Alipore, Kalkata. Please specify the following:
(i) Please specify the time taken with date references by CBI to file Final Report/Charge sheet to Court after receipt of Sanction Order in the name of President of India to Prosecute the accused.
4. Clause 22.15.1 of CHI (Crime) Manual, 2005 categorically states that "Cases in which sanction for prosecution is required to be issued in the name of the President of India-- In all cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 where sanction for prosecution is required to be issued in the name of the President, the CBI will forward its report, after completion of the investigation, to the Central Vigilance Commission and endorse a copy thereof to the Administrative Ministry/Department concerned for such comments as they may wish to make. Their comments shall be forwarded by the Ministry/Department concerned to the CVC within one month from the date of receipt of the CBI report or such period as may be fixed by the CVC. After due consideration of the CBI report, other relevant records and comments received from the Administrative Ministry/Department, the CVC will tender advice to the concerned Ministry/Department whether prosecution should be sanctioned or not. Appropriate orders will, thereafter, be issued by that Ministry/Department."
(i) Please specify whether the sanction for prosecution in the name of the President, in a Regular Case of Disproportionate Assets can be obtained without completion of the investigation and/or without bringing to notice of President that certain part of investigation is yet to be done?
(ii) Please specify instructions in this regard that permit obtaining sanction for prosecution in the name of the President, in a Regular Case of Disproportionate Assets without completion of the investigation contrary to prescribed in para 22.15.1 of CBI (Crime) manual.
4The CPIO replied to the appellant on 31.03.2021 stating that information sought cannot be provided as per section 24 of RTI Act and also denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2021. FAA's order dated 10.05.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Anupam Mathur, DSP & Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that his case is being investigated since the year 2014 and CBI seized his bank account, provident fund etc. and now Chargesheet has been filed in the year 2020. Thereafter, his only concern is that once the Charge sheet has been filed his PF, bank accounts, insurance policy etc. emoluments should have been defreezed but despite passing of these two years his accounts have not been defreezed and in the face of any mishap happening to him, his family will be rendered helpless.
The CPIO submitted that the accounts/documents sought to be released by the Appellant form the basis on which the investigation was carried out and has been submitted before the Court along with the Chargesheet and the same can be released only upon the Court's directions. He further submitted that investigation in disproportionate assets cases ordinarily take time since CBI has to depend on many external agencies and other factors for investigating each aspect of a case. Upon a query from the Commission, the CPIO explained that the relevant guidelines stipulating timelines is contained in the Crime Manual. As the Commission discussed each point of the RTI Application to ascertain the scope of relief, if any, that can be provided to the Appellant, the CPIO consistently harped on the aspect of impediment to the apprehension of offender and prosecution espoused in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and at the same time, the CPIO also urged that the Appellant has not alleged corruption anywhere in his RTI Application thereby attracting the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act.5
The Commission counselled the CPIO that he cannot claim the exemptions of Section 24 and Section 8 of the RTI Act in conjunction as the applicability of the exemptions of Section 8 with respect to the exempted organisations becomes operative only in the circumstance where the RTI Application relates to allegations of corruption and/or human rights violation.
Decision:
The Commission having heard the narrative of the Appellant at the outset empathises with his grievance, however, within the confines of the RTI Act there is little scope for intervention into the aspects of the alleged delay caused by CBI in filing of the chargesheet or that of not defreezing his financial assets etc. Moreso, since the information sought for in the RTI Application does not pertain to allegations of corruption and even as the Appellant has sought to allege human rights violation in the matter vis-à-vis the financial hardship and harassment being faced by him and his family due to the delay caused in filing of the Chargesheet, the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act remains inapplicable. The premise of alleging human rights violation has been stated in his written submissions sent prior to the hearing, relevant extracts of which is reproduced hereunder: "
1.1 CBI Kolkata zone filed FIR under RC case No. RC0102014A0014 dated 31.05.2014 on the basis of a private source information with allegation of Disproportionate Assets of Rs 45,60,713/- under IPC section 109 and 13(2) r/w, 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 against : (i) Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar, then Chief Signal & Telecom Engineer (Planning), South Eastern Railway, Kolkata, now retired (accused no.-1) (ii) Smt Seema Parihar, wife of Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar, Director of m/s NewTrek Materials Pvt Ltd. (accused no.-2) and (iii) Sri Rohit Singh Parihar, son of Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar, Director of m/s NewTrek Materials Pvt Ltd. (exonerated by the CBI in the Final Report).
1.2 CBI froze savings bank accounts, PPF accounts and seized insurance policies, all property deeds & passports of Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar, Smt. Seema Parihar, Sri Rohit Singh Parihar and Miss Archana Singh Parihar(daughter) on 07.06.2014.
1.3 Thereafter CBI did investigation for 6 long years and submitted final report / charge sheet to CBI Court (Special) No. 1, Alipore, South 24 Pargana in Aug2020. CBI did not defreeze or release above said finances and passport even after submitting final report to Court. It was revealed by CBI that above said finances will not be released as investigation is still open! 2 Harassment & Human Right Violation.
2.1 CBI-Kolkata zone prolonged the investigation for 6 long years against prescribed time limit of 1 and 1/2 years in CBI (Crime) Manual 2005, that led to - (i) non-6
promotion of Sri Rajendra Singh Parihar before retirement, (ii) adversely effected business of Smt. Seema Parihar (iii) ruined career of shri Rohit Singh Parihar who could not go back to USA as his passports were kept seized for 7 long years since Jun2014. He was working in USA and had come to India to meet us.(iv) Peace of family was disturbed as Smt. Seema Parihar could not go to USA since Jun2014 to meet her daughter studying that time (now working in USA) in times of need. (v) Continued to keep bank accounts and PPF (Public Provident Fund) accounts frozen and vital insurance documents seized and property deeds seized without shri Rajendra Singh Parihar proved guilty is against natural justice and is causing undue hardship to the Parihar family who have responsibilities to be performed.
xxx 2.3 Freezing money in PPF account is abuse of law laid down in section 10 of the EPF & MP Act,1952.
2.4 It is the right of Sri. Rajendra Singh Parihar & Smt. Seema Parihar to make use of their hard-earned money of hard work done in last 3 decades for their living, for performing responsibilities, for planning the growth and better living of the family and for ensuring good running of business of Smt. Seema Parihar.
2.5 An allegation alone, without crime being proved, should not have given liberty to CBI to play with the lives of human beings to seize their earnings of 3 decades of hard work and continue to keep it for 7 long years in the garb of conducting investigation and now even after filing Charge sheet to Court, telling all concern that investigation is still open so bank accounts etc cannot be defreezed & released.
2.6 Denial of legitimate use of hard-earned money of a family of their life long labour of 3 decades is encroachment on the right to life of the Parihar family guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
xxx
(c) If CBI still insists that certain investigation are open then I sincerely plead to CIC to direct CBI to furnish grounds and reasons for taking several "time extensions" so far to prolong the investigation for 6 long years against prescribed time limit of only 1 and /2 years under para 14.39 of CBI Crime Manual 2005. The fresh reason of CBI to keep the case open be kindly judged objectively with grounds of extension taken earlier. It will clearly reveal that CBI has deliberately kept such nuances in the final report to harass the accused and also to bypass the relevant provisions of RTI Act 2005 using those nuances.
xxx 5.5 CIC is also requested to kindly see the nature of information sought, it is no way the type of information to delay the ongoing case proceedings. Rather the information asked will help in expediting the closure of the ongoing false case made by CBI.
75.6 By taking multiple illegal extensions, CBI prolonged the investigation causing great hardship by delay not only to me but also to my family members, by continuing to keep our passports, our property documents & insurance policies seized and continued the freezing of Savings bank accounts, public provident funds, and Company cash. The file noting of the case will establish that taking so many extensions beyond the prescribed time period of 1 and ½ years were avoidable, CBI's actions were not humane and were against their own made guidelines laid down in CBI (Crime) manual 2005 as they went on looking in to issues, many not part of the FIR, to somehow obtain something to primarily justify the case falsely filed by CBI against me and my family members on a private complaint.
5.7 It is a case of false prosecution and criminal harassment is likely to run for several years and spoil the life of accused if information asked is not provided. I plead to CIC that if required Section 10 of the RTI Act may please be invoked and non-exempt information could be provided after severing exempt information."
It is also pertinent to note that before going into the aspect and applicability of Section 24 or Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the nature of the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for justifications by way of speculative queries and conjecture for the delay caused in filing the chargesheet. Nonetheless, the Commission facilitated certain inputs from the CPIO on the delay aspect during the hearing, which more or less addresses the issues raised in the RTI Application as the CPIO relied on the extant Crime Manual as well as clarified as to why investigation in disproportionate assets cases take more time. As a matter of fact, the Commission cannot call into question the merits of the administrative action/decisions taken by the CBI in the averred investigation. Here, it may not be out of place to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 8 Yet, even if we accord liberal interpretation to the queries, the Commission is unable to ascribe tenacity to the allegation of human rights violation for invoking the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission is guided by a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of The Central Public Information Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. dated 02.02.2018, wherein it has been held as under:
"8. The contention advanced on behalf of respondent no.2 is unmerited. The information sought for by respondent no.2 pertains to a service matter and the same cannot by any stretch be termed as "violation of human rights".
9. The expression „Human Rights‟ denotes certain inalienable rights which every individual has by virtue of being a member of the Human Family. In December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In December, 1965 the UN General Assembly adopted two covenants for observance of Human Rights: (i) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and (ii) Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. India is a party to the said covenants.
10. India has also enacted The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to provide for better protection of human rights and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The expression „Human Rights‟ is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act to mean "the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India".
11. The expression „Human Rights Violation‟ as used in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act cannot be read to extend all matters where a person alleges violation of fundamental rights. Plainly, the said expression cannot be extended to include controversies relating to service matters. The grievances that the petitioner has in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in question do not fall under the ambit of human rights violations. [Emphasis Supplied]
12. In Director General and Anr vs Harender: WP(C) 5959 of 2013 decided on 16.09.2013, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had held that 'No violation of human rights is involved in service matters, such as promotion, disciplinary 9 actions, pay increments, retiral benefits, pension, gratuity, etc.' '' [Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the foregoing deduction, the Commission is not in a position to order for any relief in the matter.
However, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority to ensure that the extant Crime Manual and related guidelines are placed in the public domain.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10