CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000295 dated 16.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Decision announced : 3.5.2010
Appellant - Ms. Manjima Roy
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation
Facts
:
By an application of 3.10.08 Ms. Manjima Roy of Kolkata applied to the SP, CBI, BS&FC,
CGO Complex, Salt Lake, Kolkata seeking the following information:
“(i) Nos. Of complaints/ S. I. Rs. Received by CBI against CBI officers about
demand and acceptance of bribe with the following details in between 2005 to
2007:a) Complaint/ SIR no. And date.
b) CBI Branch where the said complaint/ SIR was received with date.
c) Name of the suspected officers.
d) Date & amount of demand.
e) Date and amount of acceptance.
f) Fate of the Complaint/ SIR: Whether any RC/PE registered or closed.
g) Registration No. Of the RC/PE with date.
h) Present/ final status, i.e. in RDS in trial or closed of the said RC/PE.
i) Whether all the suspect officers were suspended or not.
j) If yes, date and period of suspension of each suspect officers.
k) Whether Review Committee was constituted and the suspension orders were
reviewed.l) If yes, when (to be shown separately in respect of each suspension).
m) Whether arrested, in PC or JC or on bail.
n) If so, when & for how many days.
o) In how many cases, the suspension was revoked, when and on what ground
(With specific details).p) In how many cases, the RDA was concluded with exoneration of punishment
(with specific details).q) In how many cases, the PE was converted into R. C. Or RDA or closed (with
specific details).r) In how many cases, the RC was convicted or closed (with specific details).
(ii) How many trap cases were personally investigated by each of the promote
S.S.P. & A.Ss in CBI (name wise) during 2005 to 2007 and how many of
those cases were convicted.(ii) Copies of the orders of revocation of suspension of Class-I, CBI
officers during the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the status of those
cases against them.(iv) Copies of all the Minutes of the meeting of the Director, CBI with
Ads/JDs/DIG/SSP held during the years 2005, 2006 & 2007.(v) All the orders, notings, letters and correspondences in respect of the
suspension, subsistence allowance, it’s review and department proceeding
against Inspector Bibek Ranjan Roy of CBI, BS & FC, Kolkata for the
period from 2005 to 2008.(vi) Copies of the ACRs of Inspector Bibek Ranjan Roy of CBI, BS & FC,
Kolkata for 1992/93 to 2007/08.(vii) Copy of the charge sheet (along with list of documents & witnesses) filed
against Sunil Chopra and others in CBI/BS & FC/Kol. Case No. RC BSK
0001 E 2004.(viii) Copy of the Search List of the search conducted in our house at EB-72,
Salt Lake, a CBI team from New Delhi leaded by Shri Ranmay Behra,
DSP.”To this she received a response dated 10.10.08 from SP, CBI, BS&FC Kolkata seeking
payment of Rs. 68/- for information at Sr. No. 3(vii). Subsequently, she received a further
letter of SP, CBI, BS&FC informing her that “The items mentioned vide Sl. No. 3 (v) in your
application dated 3.10.2008 are not maintained in this office.”Upon this, Ms. Manjima Roy had moved an appeal before the DIG, CBI, BS&FC,
Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, as follows:“2. I would like to inform you that the information sought for was ‘All the orders,
notings, letters & correspondences in respect of the suspension,
subsistence allowance, it’s review and departmental proceeding against
Inspector Shri Bibek Ranjan Roy of CBI, BS & FC, Kolkata for the period
from 2005 to 2008’. I believe that being the Disciplinary Authority of the
said Inspector, all the above documents must be available in your office
(with copies in the O/o SP, CBI, BS & FC, Kolkata).3. Besides, in respect to the letter no. 03374 dated 10.10.2008 of SP, CBI, BS
& FC, Kolkata, I have sent/ deposited a DD of Rs. 68/- to him on
18.10.2008 to get the documents (vide Sl. No. 3 (vii) of my said application
dated 3.10.2008). though a month has passed, the documents are yet to
be received by me.’Simultaneously, through a letter of 27.12.08, she had in response to Q. No. 3(viii) been
informed by SP, CBI ACU-I New Delhi that “As per records, no search was conducted in
House at EB-72, Salt Lake, Kolkata-64 on 11.6.2005….”
In both cases appellant Ms. Roy moved appeals before two First Appellate Authorities i.e.
(1) DIG, CBI, BS&FC (concerning with answers to Q. No. 3(v) & 3(iv) and (2) DIG, AC-I
(concerning with answers to Q. No. 3(viii). In the appeal with regard to Q. 3(viii) Shri D. C.
Jain, DIG, CBI, AC-I in his order of 26.10.08 has found as follows:“Reply of CPIO is based upon the record available in the branch. It appears from
the record that on information about alleged demand of bribe by Inspector, CBI,
BS&FC, Shri B. R. Roy, a team led by Shri Tanmaya Behera, DSP, CBI, AC. I had
done the necessary verification at Kolkata and submitted his verification report on
the basis of which a Preliminary Enquiry was registered against Shri B. R. Roy. I
have also checked the record available in the branch relating to above matter and
do not find any mention of search being conducted at the address given in the
application by Shri Tanmaya Behera. No such search list, as sought by the
appellant, is available in the record relating to above matter. The required
information is, therefore, nonexistent and cannot be provided to the appellant.’However, in the appeal before DIG, CBI, BS&FC, on not getting a response Ms. Manjima
Roy has moved an appeal before us pleading as follows:“It is found that all the time limit specified vide Section-7 of RTI Act, 2005 has been
elapsed in both the cases & it seems that both the above SP & DIG are liable to
face the consequences of such violations as per the law. Of late, only the copies
of the documents vide Sl. No. 3 (VII) has been received from SP, CBI, BS &FC,
Kol on 31.12.2008.I would, therefore, like to pray7 to your honour to kindly interfere into the matter
and pass suitable order immediately to get the rest of the documents vide Sl. No. 3
(V) furnished to me * repay the money paid by me as the documents vide Sl. No. 3
(VII) were not supplied in due course of time. Besides, your honour may also
award suitable penalties upon the default officers as per the provisions of Sec 20
of RTI Act, 2005.”Ms. Roy has also challenged the decision of DIG Shri D.C. Jain of 26.12.08 in a separate
appeal before us, as follows:“The said team left our house without even preparing any Search List mentioning
about the documents taken. They even did not bother to clarify their illegal &
unauthorized search to our satisfaction.The matter was brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer Sh. S. V. Raman by me
on 25.5.2007 and by my husband on 18.6.2007, when were called for deposition.
As I came to know alter that one Shri Sunil Chopra of Delhi had also confirmed
about the said search before the above Shri Raman on 21.8.2006 in his deposition.
I also came to know that both Shri Behara, DSP & Shri Ghosh, witness had also
confessed that they had visited our house on 11.6.2005 during their depositions on
5.10.2006 ?& 21.8.2006 respectively before the said Inquiry Officer Shri S. V.
Raman. All these must be enough to provide that the house search was illegally
taken place in our house on 11.6.2005. But, it is a matter of surprise to note that
the authorities of CBI did not bother to redress the matter at any stage. In spite of
my above requisitions, both the above SP & DIG have echoed the same lines of
reply, without any thorough enquiry into the matter.In these circumstances, I would pray before your honour to kindly interfere into the
matter and pass a suitable order upon the concerned officers of CBI to get the
documents furnished and/ or get a thorough enquiry conducted to unearth the truth
& motive behind the illegal search at our house.”Both appeals having brought together on a single file and were heard by video conference
on 3.5.2010. The following are present:APPELLANT at NIC Studio, Kolkata
Shri Bibek Ranjan Roy representing the appellant
RESPONDENTS at NIC Studio, Kolkata
Shri Vijay Kumar, SP, CBI, Kolkata
RESPONDENTS at CIC Studio, New Delhi
Shri Ramnish, SP, ACU-II, CBI.
SP, CBI, BS&FC Kolkata Shri Vijay Kumar submitted that although there has indeed been
a delay in supplying the information, information sought had been furnished with regard to
Q. No. 3(vii) on 26.12.08 and on Q. No. 3 (v) on receipt of an order of 9.1.09 by the
Appellate Authority in appeal, received on 14.1.09, on 24.2.09. Because the information
was delayed, it was provided free of cost.
Shri Ramnish, SP, CBI, ACU on the other hand submitted that as already noted by DIG,
Shri D.C. Jain, in his order on appeal dated 26.12.08, the CBI team had indeed done the
necessary verification at Kolkata and also submitted a verification report on the basis of
his visit. No search was conducted and, therefore, there are no search records. He
further contended that the accused being a CBI Officer was well aware that if a search is
conducted, a report is to be provided to the party search before departure from the
premises. In this case, had there been a search, and for the party not so reported, the
accused Ms. Roy could well have raised the issue the very next day and obtained the
copies sought. Infact this was not done would, in his view, corroborate his stand that no
search was conducted.
Representative of appellant Ms. Manjima Roy, who is also the accused in the CBI case,
Shri Bibek Ranjan Roy submitted that although indeed part of the information had, after a
long delay, with regard to para 3(v) been received, a large part of such information has
not. Even were this not held by SP, CBI, BS&FC, this should have been supplied from
whatever office it was held instead of bluntly refusing information which SP, CBI has done
in his letter of 27.10.08. To this SP, CBI Shri Vijay Kumar responded by stating that all
such information, as is held by him, has infact been provided to appellant.
Shri Bibek Ranjan Roy also submitted that with regard to Q. No. 3(viii), although CPIO Shri
Ramnish, SP, CBI, ACU has denied that there was a search, there is material produced
before the Court which would indicate that there had been a search.
DECISION NOTICE
1. With regard to Q. No. 3(viii), we find that the information sought by appellant Ms.
Manjima Roy has been provided in full by informing her that there is no record of any
search conducted in this matter by the CBI. If Ms. Roy wishes to contest this matter on
the basis of any subsidiary evidence that she has collected, she is free to do so in the Trial
Court. However, we are satisfied that the CBI has maintained no record of search in this
matter. This issue is, therefore, dismissed.
2. On the issue of information sought under para 3(vii), it is now clear that what SP,
CBI BS&FC has provided is, by his own admission, only a part of information
sought by appellant Ms. Manjima Roy. By his own admission, the remaining part
of the information is held by the Office of Jt. Director & DIG (Admn), whose office is
housed in CBI Headquarters. It was, therefore, incumbent upon SP, CBI to
transfer this question u/s 6(3)(1) to the Office of Jt. Director (Admn), CBI. Sec. 6(3)
reads as follows:
Sec. 6(3)
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an
information,–
1
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
2
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of
another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is
made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate
to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about
such transfer:
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be
made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of
receipt of the application.”
Even were we to accept the plea taken by Shri Vijay Kumar in the hearing that the Office
of Jt. Director is only his headquarters and not a separate public authority, the information
should still have been u/s 5(4) so as to be provided to appellant Ms. Manjima Roy. Sec.
5(4) reads as follows:
Sec. 5(4)
The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she
considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.
SP, CBI, BS&FC Kolkata will, therefore, now transfer this question to Jt. Director (Admn) /
DIG CBI who is directed to provide a complete answer to Ms. Roy within ten working days
of the receipt of this Decision Notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Jt.
Registrar, Central Information Commission.
3. SP, CBI Shri Vijay Kumar has also been unable to explain as to why he has not
supplied the complete information at least on receipt of the orders of Appellate
Authority, received by him on 14.1.09 till date. He will, therefore, show cause as to
why he should not be held liable for penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for deemed refusal u/s
20(1) of the RTI Act. He will explain this in writing through a letter addressed to
Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar in this Commission within ten working
days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice, failing which this Commission
will proceed to process this matter further u/s 20 of the RTI Act.
The appeal is thus allowed in part. Announced in the hearing.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
3.5.2010
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
3.5.2010