Ms. Hema D’Souza vs Deputy Commissioner Police, … on 20 July, 2009

                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                  Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00181 dated 19-2-2008
                    Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19

Appellant:           Ms. Hema D'Souza
Respondent:          Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) Vigilance


                             Date of Decision 20.7.'09


FACTS

By an application of 27.9.2006 address to Addl. Secretary, Home
Department, GNCT, Delhi Ms. Hema D’Souza sought the following
information:

“a. Please provide the names and designations of all the
officials who handled/ enquired into my complaint.
b. Please intimate the periods when the file was handled
with which officer and the action taken by that official
during that period.

c. Please intimate the response provided/ action taken in
pursuance to letter from O/o Dy. Secy (grievances) CMO,
GNCTD, No. CMO/PGC (E)/2006/70539 dated
14.2.2006. Copy enclosed as Annexure I.

d. Please intimate the response/ action taken to the
complainant’s letter dated 22nd February 2006 copy
enclosed as Annexure II.

e. Please intimate the response provided/ action taken in
pursuance to the letter from O/o Dy. Secy (Grievances)
CMO, GNCTD No. CMO/PGC (E)/2006/72029/DSG-127
dated 13.3.2006. Copy enclosed as Annexure III.
f. Please intimate the response/ action taken to the
complainant’s letter wherein the allegations have been
substantiated/ clarified vide letter dated 08th May 2006.
Copy enclosed as Annexure IV.

g. Please intimate the response provided/ action taken in
pursuance to the letter from O/o Dy. Secy (Grievances)
CMO, GNCTD, No. CMO/PGC
(E)/2006/80324/CMO/DSG/24127 dated 18.8.2006.
Copy enclosed as Annexure V.

h. Please intimate whether the O/o Home Secretary has
taken up the complaint with Forensic Science Laboratory,
as is directly under the Principal Secretary Home,
GNCTD.

i. Please intimate if the complaint has been taken up with
the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD.

1

j. Please intimate as why the complainant has not been
given an opportunity to explain/ present fats, in person,
with regards to allegations against Forensic Science
Laboratory, if there existed any ambiguity/ discrepancy in
her complaint/ subsequent written clarifications.
k. Inspection of the relevant/ enquiry file(s), record of
communications, in form of letters, facsimile, email,
documents, reports, papers, material in electronic form of
electronic records or any other records, pertaining to the
complaint/ statements/ notations/ enquiry with regards to
captioned complaint.

l. Copy of relevant documents from relevant/ enquiry file(s)
record of communications, in form of letters, facsimile,
email, documents, reports, papers, material in electronic
form or electronic records or any other records, after
inspection of aforementioned files/ document, pertaining
to the complaint/ statements/ notations/ enquiry with
regards to captioned complaint.”

This was forwarded to the Addl. Secretary, Home Department by the
Customer Care Centre where it was submitted. But on not receiving a
response Ms. Hema D’Souza moved an appeal on 20.11.2006 before Shri O.
P. Kelkar, Principle Secretary, Home Department. This appeal was forwarded
to the Commissioner of Police and Director (FSL), GNCT Delhi by Shri K. R.
Mendiratta, Deputy Secretary, Home directing him “to send the reply in
respect of the queries raised pertaining to your department directly to the
applicant within 7 days under intimation to this department positively”.

On an appeal against the order of 12.5.06 of Dy. Secretary (Home)
directing Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Director, SFL, GNCT Delhi
” to send the reply s quoted above we had on 10.7.07 decided as follows:

“From the facts above, it appears that it is a case of malafide
denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the
responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the
orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the
Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to
the First Appellate Authority to ensure that its orders under
section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested
information furnished in terms of the order so passed.”

In the meantime, however, by a letter of 22.12.06 the DCP (EOW), to
whom this matter had been transferred on 11.12.06, forwarded the request to

2
DCP (Vigilance). The DCP (Vig) then sent a detailed response to appellant
Ms. Hema D’Souza on 25.1.07 point wise but concluding as follows:

“Copy of enquiry report cannot be furnished to you as per
section 8 (1) (e) (g) of RTI Act, 2005 as these persons have
had their depositions recorded in good faith and in confidence
during the course of enquiry. The identities of such citizens
who cooperate with the law enforcement authorities need to
be protected, as was held by CIC in the case of Vinod Kr.

Sharma vs. Delhi Police in case File No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00373 dated 23.11.2006.”

Upon this Ms. Hema D’Souza moved an appeal before the Addl.

Commissioner of Police – HQ Shri R. K. Upadhyaya with which he has
appended a statement under the following heads:

Q. Information Response from Reasons for
No. sought/ questions PIO-Annexure II appeal-

          in     application-                              Annexure III
          Annexure

Appellant Ms D’Souza’s objection, however, is to the answers to the
final paragraph as follows:

1. Copy of relevant Document of the 1. As in
documents from relevant enquiry aforementioned, k.

relevant/ enquiry files and other
file(s) record of documents 2. Provision u/s 8
communications, cannot be (1) (g) (e), not
in form of letters, furnished to you applicable as
facsimile, email, u/s 8 (1) (g)(e)(h) decision as held in;

            documents,            of the RTI Act.       a. Shri Ajit Kar vs.
            reports, papers,                            Shri Bhim Sain
            material         in   Copy of enquiry       Bassi, Jt. CP SR,
            electronic form or    report cannot be      CIC/AT/A/
            electronic            furnished to you      2006/00499, 467 &
            records or any        as per section 8      469.
            other     records,    (1) (g) (e) of RTI    b. Smt. Chanchal
            after inspection      Act, 2005, as         Goel Vs DCP NW,
            of                    these      persons    CIC/AT/ A/ 06/
            aforementioned        have had there        00338, dated 20th
            files/ documents,     dispositions          Oct, 06.
            pertaining to the     recorded in good      c. Shri Gurcharan
            complaint/            faith    and     in   Singh vs Shri Anil
            statement/            confidence            Shukla, DCP, SW,
            notations/            during the course     CIC/AT/A/       06/
            enquiry        with   of enquiry. The       00343 dated 20th
            regards          to   identities of such    Oct, 06.
            captioned             citizens       who    d. Smt. Hema


                                         3
            complaint.           cooperate    with    D'Souza
                                law enforcement      CIC/AT/A/06/
                                authorities need     00464 dated     3rd
                                to be protected      January 2007.
                                as was held by
                                CIC in the case
                                of   Vinod    Kr.
                                Sharma vs. Delhi
                                Police in case
                                File          no.
                                CIC/AT/A/2006/0
                                0373        dated
                                23.11.2006

Appellate Authority Shri R. K. Upadhyaya, Addl. Commissioner of
Police (HQ), however, has not dwelt on this detail and has summarily
disposed of the appeal in his order of 13.3.2006, as follows:

“It has been found that PIO/ Vig have already provided you all
the information that could be provided to you under the
Provisions of RTI Act, 2005. There are no grounds in the appeal
to interfere with the orders of PIO/Vig. The appeal is thus
rejected.”

In her appeal before us Ms. Hema D’Souza has pleaded as follows:
“No response, whatsoever, has been received from CPIO,
FSL, although the matter has been brought to the notice of
the First Appellate Authority, vide fax dated 17.8.2007.

CPIO DCP/ Vigilance, however, vide her response dated
25.1.2007, denied inspection and copies u/s 8(g) (h) (e).
Pursuant to appeal, FAA Vigilance, Delhi Police, upheld the
impugned decision of CPIO DCP/ Vigilance, vide his
decision dated 13.3.2007.”

The appeal was heard on 9.7.2009. The following are present:

Appellant
Shri M. D’Souza
Respondents
Sh. Parvinder Singh, ACP (VIg) / APIO
Sh. Vineet Kumar, OSD (Home)
Dr. V. K.Gupta, Director, F.S.L.

Sh. M. N. Tiwari, DCP (Vig) / PIO

Shri M. D’Souza presented letter of authority from appellant Ms. Hema
D’Souza, which has been placed on record. Shri M. L. Tiwari, DCP (V)
submitted that disclosure of the Enquiry Report, which contains the

4
statements of sources and witnesses, would compromise exemption u/s
8(1)(g).

We find that through the response of the PIO of 26.1.07, the
requirement of our Decision of 10.7.07 stood already complied with and to
that extent our Decision was infructuous. However, in the present appeal,
before we can decide on the merits or demerits on disclosure of the enquiry
report, we decided that it would be necessary for us to examine the report.
The Enquiry Report was, therefore, directed to be presented to us on
20.7.2009 at 4.30 p.m. after examining which a final decision will be taken in
the matter. Accordingly file No. F.24 (335)/Vigilance/06 was inspected by us
on 20-7-2009 and the following are present: –

Respondents:

Shri Parvinder Singh, ACP (APIO)
Shri Vineet Kumar, OSD (Home)

DECISION NOTICE

The enquiry report is included in pages 3 to 6 of the on file No. F.24
(335)/Vigilance/06 in the noting on file with the No. 347/P.Sec. /DCP
Vigilance as reference. This is with reference to an enquiry on a complaint by
Ms. Hema D’Souza wife of Shri M. D’Souza vs. Smt. Kamlesh, Varinder and
Police Officers of PS Punjabi Bagh conducted by ACP (Vigilance) Shri Vijay
Manchanda, Police Hqrs. Although, the report does mention the witnesses
examined and their depositions, there is nothing in the report that could
remotely constitute a threat to the life of physical safety of any person that,
since there is no incriminating evidence provided identifying the source of
information or assistance given for law enforcement, is unlikely to be
compromised by disclosure.

We find, however, that apart from the enquiry report Ms. Hema
D’Souze has sought Copies of relevant documents from relevant/ enquiry
file(s) record of communications, in form of letters, facsimile, e-mail,
documents, reports, papers, material in electronic form or electronic records
or any other records, after inspection of aforementioned files/ documents,

5
pertaining to the complaint/ statement/ notations/ enquiry with regards to
captioned complaint.

Having examined the records and heard the parties we come to the
following conclusion:

i) Enquiry report contained in pages 3 to 6 of File noting on file No.
F.24 (335)/Vigilance/06 will be provided to Ms. Hema D’Souza
within 10 days from the date of receipt of this decision notice;

ii) Statement of witnesses which are stated tom have been given in
confidence and which the witnesses may not wish to be disclosed,
will be treated as exempt from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (g) of the RTI
Act.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. There will be no costs.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
20-7-2009

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.

(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
20-7-2009

6