CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01300 dated 19-10-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rajender Singh
Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation,(CBI)
FACTS
By an application of 3-5-2007 Shri Rajinder Singh of Vasant Kunj,
Delhi who was Public Prosecutor, CBI, EOU-VI, New Delhi applied to the SP,
CBI, EOU-VI, New Delhi seeking the following information comprised of 47
questions:
“4. Copy of memorandum dated 18.4.2007 submitted by the
CBI to the Hon’ble Chairman, 6th Pay Commission, New
Delhi for pay and allowances for entire staff of CBI.
5. Copy of action taken report, submitted by DCB/ New
Delhi to National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New
Delhi in compliance of its letter dated 29.3.2007 regarding
my complaint dated 9.1.2007.
6. Extracts of relevant portion of Noting Sheet of concerned
file O/o The Supd. Of Police, CBI, ACB, Silchar in which,
my letter dated 31.1.2006 regarding grant of composite
transfer grant and cash equivalent to 1/3rd of my
entitlement transpiration of baggage, dealt with and the
extracts of relevant portion of noting sheet of concerned
file in which my fax dated 2.2.2006 regarding said matter
dealt with.
7. Extracts of the relevant portion of noting sheet of the
concerned file, O/o The Supdt. Of Police, CBI, EOU.VI,
New Delhi in which my Travelling Allowance Bill for
transfer dated 21.2.2006 dealt with.
8. Extracts of the relevant portion of the noting sheet O/o
The Suptd, of Police, CBI, EOU. VI, New Delhi in which
my Transfer Application dated 20.3.2006 dealt with.
9. Copy of examination report/ action taken report on my
representation dated 5.3.2007 addressed to the Director,
CBI, New Delhi in which the case of Raj Kishore Rabidas
Vs. State, reported in AIR 1969, Calcutta, Page-321 has
been referred.
1
10. Copy of examination report/ action taken report on my
representation dated 5.3.2007 addressed to the
Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and
Pension, (DOPT), New Delhi in which said case of Raj
Kishore Rabidas Vs. State, reported in AIR 1969,
Calcutta Page-321 has been referred.
11. Copy of examination report/ action taken report on my
representation dated 5.3.2007 addressed to the Director
of Prosecution, CBI, New Delhi in which the said case of
Raj Kishore Rabidas Vs. State, reported in AIR 1969,
Calcutta Page 321 has been referred.
12. Copy of action taken report at point no. 5 of my said
representation mentioned at Para 9 dated 5.3.2007 sent
to the Dy. Inspector General of Police /ACR/CBI/Patna/
Bihar vide no. 2099/A-20/R-46/PF/2006/EOII/CBI/New
Delhi dated 14.3.2007.
13. Copy of action taken report at point no. 7 of my said
representation mentioned at para 9 dated 5.3.2007 sent
to the Dy. Inspector of Police/ ACR/CBI/Guwahati/ Assam
vide no. 2097/A-20/R-46/PF/2006/EO.II/CBI/New Delhi
dated 14.3.2007.
14. Copies of memos, which were drafted/ prepared by Head
office, CBI, New Delhi on the basis of complaints, sent by
Shri P. D. Meena, the then SPI/ CBI/ACB/Silchar and
they were sent to Shri J. S. Tarang the then DLA, CBI,
RO, Kolkata to serve on me.
15. Copy of my representation dated 4.4.2006 which was
diarised at Sl. No. 276 on 10.4.2006 in the office of
Directorate of Prosecution, CBI, New Delhi and copy of
orders of DOP/CBI/ New Delhi on the said representation.
16. Signed copy of each page of Memorandum no.
221/11/2005-AVD-II dated 25.8.2005 served on me on
25.10.2005.
17. Copy of Office Memorandum no. 11013/2/2004-Estt (A)
dated 10.2.2004 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pension (DOPT), New Delhi.
18. Copy of comments of the concerned SP/DIG regarding
para 6 to 10 of my complaint dated 7.11.2006 forwarded
by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, DOPT, New Delhi vide their letter No.
258/6/2007-AVD, II dated 12.3.2007 (CBI ID No.
DP/PERS.I/2007/762/3/23/98 (Pt.) dated 3.4.2007 is
referred).
2
19. Copy of Log Book dated 10.5.2003 of all office vehicles,
maintained in the O/o the Supdt. Of Police/ CBI/ACB/
Ranchi.
20. Copy of Log Book dated 10.5.2003 of all the office
vehicles, maintained in the office of Suptd. Of Police, CBI,
AHD, Ranchi.
21. Copy of Log Book dated 10.5.2003 of all the office
vehicles, maintained in the office of
DIG/CBI/ACB/RO/Ranchi.
22. Copy of my complaint dated 16.10.2003 under the
subject: regarding discrimination between the Schedule
Caste and General Caste employees, addressed to the
Supdt of Police, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, which was received
by Shri Raghdu Nath Jhan, LDC, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad.
23. Copy of action taken report on my said complaint referred
in para 22.
24. I had sent a letter to the Supdt of Police, CBI, ACB,
Dhanbad with transaction no. 2433 dated 19.1.2004 of
Head Post Office, DHN regarding discrimination among
the Schedule Caste and General Caste employees.
Copy of action taken report on said complaint.
25. Details of Departmental action initiated against the
delinquent officers in terms of explanation to Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DOPT) Order
No. 11013/2/2004-Estt (A) dated 10.2.2004 (Para 23 and
24 are referred).
26. Copy of my representation dated 3.9.2003 with reference
to No. NIL/3/8(A)/93-D/RR dated 31.8.2003 received by
Shri Raghu Nath, LDC, CBI, Dhanbad addressed to DIG,
CBI, RO., Ranchi.
27. Copy of relevant portion of crime file in case RC
8(A)/93(D) in which said representation referred in para
26 dealt with.
28. Copy of disclosure reports in RC 1(A)/2000,RC 1(S)/2003
and RC 1(S)/2004-CBI/SCB/LKO.
29. Copy of recommendations of IO/SP/DIG/JD/ Special
Directors /APP/PP/Sr/PP/ DLA/ALA/DOP in RC
1(S)/2000-CBI/SCB/LKO.
3
30. Copy of recommendations of IO/SP/DIG/JD/ Additional
Directors /APP/PP/Sr/PP/ DLA/ALA/DOP in RC 1(S)/03
and RC 1(S)/04-CBI/SCB/LKO.
31. Copy of cognizance orders in RC 1(S)/2000, RC-1(S)/03
and RC-1(S)/04-CBI/SCB/LKO.
32. Copy of disclosure reports in RC 6/95 and RC 8/2005-
CBI/EOU V, New Delhi.
33. Copy of recommendations of IO/SP/DIG/JS/ Special
Directors or Additional Directors/ APP/PP/Sr.
PP/DLA/ALA/DOP in RC 6/95 and RC 8/05-CBI, EOU V
New Delhi.
34. copy of cognizance orders in RC 6/95 and RC 8/05-
CBI/EOU V, new Delhi.
35. Copy of my complaint dated 17.10.2003 against Shri R. N.
Das, the then SR. PP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad under subject
regarding misconduct committed by the Sr. PP submitted
to the office of Suptd of Police, CBI, ACB, DHN on
17.10.2003.
36. Copy of action taken report the said complaint dated
17.10.2003 complaint, mentioned at Para 35.
37. In response of No. NIL/3/8(A)/93-D/RR dated 31.8.2003, I
have sent a letter to DIG/ CBI/Ranchi Region, Ranchi
through the SP/CBI/SPE/Dhanbad which was
acknowledged by Shri Raghu Nath Jhan, LDC, CBI, ACB,
DHN on 3.9.2003. Copy of said letter and action taken
report on said letter.
38. Copy of CBI, HO, Letter No. 5/5/93-IWSU dated 6.7.1994.
39. Copy of DOP&T letter No. 207/2/93-AVD II dated
1.7.1994.
40. Copy of my transfer T. A. Advance Application dated
6.4.2004, submitted to the Supdt. Of Police, CBI, ACB,
Silchar.
41. Copy of nothing Sheet of the relevant portion of the
concerned file in which ,said transfer TA Advance
application was dealt with.
42. Copy of DSPIL/2004/2561/A/24/9/2004 dated 27.4.2004.
43. Copy of Earned Leave application of mine, dated
1.6.2004, submitted to the SP/CBI/ACB/ Silchar.
4
44. Copy of letter vide which, my said EL application was
sent to sr. PP/CBI/ACB/Guwahati by the SP/CBI/ACB/
Silchar.
45. Copy of the letter vide which, my said EL application was
sent to DLA/CBI/ACB/RO, Kolkatta by the SR. PP/
CBIACB, Guwahati.
46. Copy of office order no.111/2004 dated 23.6.2004, O/o
The SP/ CBI/ACB, Silchar.
47. Copy of my Annual statement of General Provident Fund
Account No. CBI/ND/7880 for year 2005-06 and 2006-07.
48. Copy of TA Bill, submitted to the office of the Supdt of
Polcie, CBI/ ACB, Navi Mumbai after attending
programme on Introduction to Computer application from
27.11.2000 to 29.11.2000 conducted at Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi, which has not been passed so far. Please
verify from Railway Warrants counterfoil of the year 2000
because two/ R/W were issued to me to perform journey
from Bombay to New Delhi and back.
49. Copy of file notings and copy of each page of my
personal file/ separate file, maintained by the PA to the
Supdt of Police CBI/ ACB, Silchar, keep in mind that I am
not seeking information from my personal file, which was
maintained in the Establishment Section, O/o the SP/
CBI/ACB/ Silchar.
50. Period for which information asked for last 14 years.”
In a response of 27-6-07 SP CBI, Dhanbad to whom the application
was forwarded on 7-6-07 replied as per the following chart to 8 questions:
Para Copy of my complaint dated 16.10.2003 regarding
No. discrimination between the Schedule Caste and General
22 Caste employees, addressed to the Supdt of Police, CBI,
ACB, Dhanbad, which was received by Shri Raghdu Nath
Jha, LDC, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad.
Reply The complaint dated 16.10.2003 of the applicant was not
received in the Branch. As on date this complaint is not
appearing in the records of this office. The Receipt Register
will be shown to you, if needed.
Para Copy of action taken report on the applicant's complaint
No. referred in para 22.
23
5
Reply Complaint along with the action taken report, if any, is not
appearing in the records of this office.
Para The applicant had sent a letter to the Supdt of Police, CBI,
No. ACB, Dhanbad with transaction no. 2433 dated 19.1.2004 of
24 Head Post Office, DHN regarding discrimination among the
Schedule Caste and General Caste employees. Copy of
action taken report on said complaint.
The letter dated 19.1.2004 of the applicant was received in
Reply the Branch which was diarised vide diary No. 46 dated
20.1.2004 by Sri Raghu Nath Jha, LDC, CBI, ACB,
Dhanbad. This letter is not appearing in the record of this
office. The Receipt Register will be shown to you, if needed.
Para Details of Departmental action initiated against the
No. delinquent officers in terms of explanation to Ministry of
25 Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (DOPT) Order
No. 11013/2004-Estt (A) dated 10.2.2004 (Para 23 and 24
are referred).
Reply The aforesaid letter of the applicant alongwith action taken
report, if any, are not appearing in the records of this office.
Para Copy of relevant portion of crime file in case RC 8(A)/93(D)
No. in which said representation referred in para 26 dealt with.
27
Information with regards to Para No. 27 of the applicant
Reply relates to the office of the DIG, CBI, RR, Ranchi. This fat is
being brought to the notice of the DIG, CBI, RR, Ranchi.
However, the Crime File of RC 8 (A)/93-D will be made
available to you for inspection, if needed.
Para Copy of my complaint dated 17.10.2003 against Shri R. N.
No. Das, the then SR. PP, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad regarding
35 misconduct committed by the Sr. PP submitted to the office
of Suptd of Police, CBI, ACB, DHN on 17.10.2003.
The complaint dated 17.10.2003 of the applicant, if any,
Reply against Shri R. N. Das, the then Sr. PP, CBI, ACB,
Dhanbad, was not received by the Branch. As on date this
complaint is not appearing in the records of this office. The
receipt Register will be shown to you, if needed.
Para Copy of action taken report to the complaint dated
No. 17.10.2003.
36
reply The records of this office does not show any action taken
report against complaint dated 17.10.2003.
Para In response of No. NIl/3/8(A)/93-D/RR dated 31.8.2003, the
37 applicant has sent a letter to DIG/ CBI/Ranchi Region,
Ranchi through the SP/CBI/SPE/Dhanbad which was
acknowledged by Shri Raghu Nath Jhan, LDC, CBI, ACB,
DHN on 3.9.2003.
6
The receipt register of this office does not show the receipt
of this letter. The Receipt Register will be shown to you, if
needed.
Not satisfied Shri Rajender Singh moved his first appeal before Shri A
K. Singh, DIG (Police) CBI/ACB/RR, Ranchi praying that the CPIO may
please be directed to furnish the information requested for. In the five grounds
for appeal, however, only the following two are actually requests for
information, the remaining being exxcoriation at the manner of functioning of
the CBI, a mater outside the purview of the RTI Act 2005:
“8.2 That as regards to Para 7.5 and 7.6 it is submitted that my letter
dated 19.1.2004 has been diarized at SL No. 46 on 20.1.2004,
which is missing from the official records of the office of the
CPIO the CPIO has not indicated as to who is responsible for
missing the said letter. In this way the CPIO has failed to
maintain the devotion to duty by not making any inquiry for
missing the said letter from the official records of the office of the
CPIO.
8.3 That as regard to Para 7.9, 7.10 & 7.011 it is submitted that the
information, requested for, related to the office of the CPIO the
office of the DIG/CBI/RR, Ranchi does not concern. The CPIO
is legally obliged to furnish the information sought for.”
Nevertheless, first Appellate Authority Shri A.K. Singh in his extensive
order of 26-8-07 has gone into the merits of each point raised and has
directed the CPIO to check receipt of complaints in some cases, to conduct
an enquiry and fix responsibility in others. In compliance Shri R.N. Azad, SP,
CBI, ACB, Dhanbad has sent appellant a response as per the following chart
on 25-9-07:
Q. Contents Decision of Appellate Authority Reply of CPIO (i.e.
NO. (i.e. DIG, CBI, RR, Ranchi) SP, CBI, ACB,
Dhanbad)
22 The applicant The appellant has submitted that The Receipt
&23 has requested CPIO has not denied the facts Register was
for information thatcom0plaint dated 16.10.03 was checked and it was
of copy of his not received by Shri Raghu Nath found that the said
complaint dated Jha, LDC. CPIO ha explained that complaint has been
16.10.03 under his reply is based on after cross received in the
the subject, checking the receipt register for branch but the copy
‘regarding’ regd/ speed post letters and receipt of the complaint is
discrimination letters received by post. It appears not available.
between that applicant had submitted a Branch is
Scheduled complaint dated 16.10.03 to SP, conducting an
7
Castes and CBI, Dhanbad and has reflected that enquiry to fix the
General castes said letter was received by Shri responsibility for
employees Raghu Nath Jha, LDC. Hence, it missing of the copy
addressed to appears that applicant had of the complaint.
SP, CBI, ACB, submitted complaint to the branch
Dhanbad which directly and such letters may find
was received by entry into general receipt registers or
Shri Raghu register meant for receipt of
Nath Jha, LDC, complaints. Hence, CPIO is directed
CBI, Dhanbad to check the receipt of the said
and a copy of complaint in other register
action taken maintained with branch and
report on the thereafter, a suitable reply to the
said complaint. applicant.
24 The applicant As CPIO has accepted that letter The copy of the
has requested sent by applicant through post was complaint was
for copy of received in the office and was received, however,
action taken on diarized vide no. 46 dated 20.1.04 it is not available in
the said but the letter is not appearing in the the records of the
complaint sent record of the office. CPIO is branch. Branch is
by the applicant directed to get an enquiry conducted conducting an
to the SP, CBI, and responsibility be fixed for enquiry to fix the
Dhanbad with missing of the said complaint. responsibility for
transaction no. missing of the copy
2433 dated of the complaint.
19.1.04 of Head
Post Office
Dhanbad
regarding
discrimination
among the SC
employee.
25 The applicant The applicant had not requested for Till date no enquiry
was requested copy of the said letter but he had was held hence
for details of requested details of departmental taking details of
departmental action initiated against the departmental action
action initiated delinquent officers in terms of initiated against the
against the referred letter hence an appropriate delinquent officer
delinquent reply be sent. does not arise.
officers in terms
of explanation to
Ministry of
Personnel,
Public
Grievances and
Pension (DOPT)
Order No.
11013/2/2004-
Estt (A) dated
10.2.304.
8
27 The applicant It appears that para 26 and 27 are Letter dated 3.9.03
has requested inter related with each other but as of the applicant
for copy of para 26 has not been transferred to addressed to DIG,
relevant portion the branch hence reply of para 27 CBI, RR, Ranchi
of crime file in does not appear to be complete. was forwarded vide
case RC 8 The appellant has requested for this office letter No.
(A)/93-D in copy of his representation dated 5115/3/8(A)/93(D)
which said 3.9.03 and copy of relevant portion dated 16.9.03 .
representation of crime file of RC 8 (A)/93-D where The relevant
referred in para referred representation was dealt portion of the Diary
26 dealt with. with. Hence, CPIO should give reply No. 79 of dated
accordingly. 21.3.03 Court Diary
No. 81 of dated
28.4. 03 are
regarding
representation
21.4.03 of Shri
Rajendra Singh,
then PP, alongwith
observation DIG,
CBI, RR, Ranchi
dated 31.8.03
Which are part of
case pending in the
court. Hence,
CPIO clause
exemption u/s 8 (1)
(h) of RTI Act 2005
for not providing the
documents/
information
inspection of crime
file also to
appellant.
35 The applicant CPIO has explained that his reply is The Receipt
& has requested based on after cross checking the Registers of
36 for coy of his receipt register for regd/ speed post relevant period has
complaint dated letters and receipt letters received by been check which
17.10.2003 post. It appears that applicant had do not show any
against Shri R. submitted a complaint dated regarding receipt of
N. Das, the then 17.10.03 to SP, CBI, Dhanbad complaint 17.10.03
Sr. PP CBI, against Shri R. N. Das, the then SR. from the appellant.
ACB, Dhanbad PP, hence, it appears that applicant
under the had submitted complaint to the
subject branch directly and such letters may
regarding find entry into general receipt
misconduct registers and register meant for
committed by receipt of complaints. Hence, CPIO
SR. PP and is directed to check the receipt of the
copy of action said complaint in other register
9
taken report in maintained with the branch and
the said thereafter, a suitable reply am be
complaint. sent to the appellant.
37 The applicant The appellant has submitted that The Receipt
has requested CPIO has not denied the facts his Register is showing
for copy of letter letter dated 3.9.03 was not received entry regarding
sent to DIG, by Shri Raghu Nath Jha, LDC, receipt of letter
CBI, Ranchi CPIO has explained that his reply is 3.9.03 which was
through SP, based on after cross checking the forwarded DIG,
CBI, Dhanbad receipt register for regd/ speed post CBI, RR, Ranchi
and letters and receipt letters received by vide office letter No.
acknowledged post. It appears that applicant had 5115/3/8(A) dated
by Shri Raghu submitted a letter dated 3.9.03 16.9.03. Action
Nath Jha on addressed to DIG, CBI, RR through taken report any is
3.9.03 against SP, CBI, Dhanbad and the said not appearing in the
the response letter was received by Shri Raghu file of the branch.
No. Nil. Nath Jha, LDC. Hence, it appears
/3/8(A)/93-D/RR that applicant had submitted a letter
dated 31.8.03 to the branch directly and such
and action taken letters may find entry into general
report on the receipt registers or in the concerned
said letter. crime file. Hence, CPIO is directed
to check the receipt of the said letter
in other register maintained with
branch concerned crime file and
thereafter, a suitable reply may be
sent to the appellant.
Appellant has then moved a second appeal before us with the following
prayer:
“12.1 That the CPIO may please be directed to furnish the
information requested for vide para 22, 24, 26, 27, 35
& 37 of the application dated 3.5.2007.
12.2 that disciplinary action against the CPIO under the
service rules may please be recommended for
destruction of information which were the subject of
the request, sought by para 22 and 24 of the
application.
12.3 That the disciplinary action against the CPIO under
the service rules may please be recommended to
deny the request for information malfidely which
were requested vide para 26 and 27 of the application.
12.4 That the penalty may please be imposed against the
CPIO to furnish false information regarding para 35 of
the application because the CPIO has informed that
my complaint dated 17.10.2003 against Shri R. N. Das,10
then SR. PP/CBI/ACB, Dhanbad who was committed
misconduct, not received by the office of the CPIO.
12.5 That the penalty may please be imposed against the
CPIO to furnish false information regarding para 37 of
the application that the receipt register of the office
of the CPIO does not show the receipt of the letter
dated 3.9.2003
Of the 46 questions asked, therefore, appellant Shri Rajender Singh is
dissatisfied with the responses to six. The appeal was, therefore, heard
through Video Conference on 6-2-2009. The Following are present.
Appellant (at CIC Studio Delhi)
Shri Rajender Singh
Respondents
Shri S. K. Peshin, SP, CBI, Delhi.
Shri V.P. Arya, SP, CBI, Dhanbad. (at CIC Studio, Dhanbad)
Shri A. K. Singh, DIG, CBI, Ranchi.(at CID Studio Jharkhand)
Shri Rajender Sing submitted written arguments in which he has
addressed the responses received from the CPIO and his own submission as
follows:
Q. Order of CPIO Order of FAA Reply of CPIO Submissions of
NO. dated 27.6.07 dated 24.8.07 dated 25.9.07 appellant
to the decision
of FAA dated
24.8.07
22 Complaint dated CPIO was The CPIO The information
16.10.03 was directed to check responded that which was the
not received in the receipt the inquiry is subject of the
the office of register and being conducted request was
CPIO thereafter a to fix the destroyed to shield
suitable reply be responsibility for Shri R. N. Das, the
sent to the missing the then Sr. PP, CBI,
appellant. com-plaint ACB, DHN who did
dated 16.10.03. not appear in the
Court on 30.9.03
nor did he apply for
CL for the date
10.1.03, whereas
salary was paid to
him for these dates.
24 Letter dated CPIO was The CPIO Do
19.1.04 was directed to get an responded that
received in the enquiry the office of the
office of CPIO conducted to fix CPIO is
11
but it is not responsibility for conducting an
appearing in the missing the letter inquiry to fix the
records of the dated 19.1.04. responsibility for
office of CPIO. missing the
complaint dated
19.1.04.
26 The CPIO The CPIO was The CPIO The exemption is
& responded that directed to give claimed not claimable. The
27 reply to question appropriate reply. exemption u/s 8 CPIO claimed
No. 26 & 27 (1) (h) under the exemption only to
relate to the RTI Act. shield Shri B. B.
office of FAA Mishra, the then
hence it is being Dy. Inspector
brought in the General of Police
notice of FAA. CBI/ ACB Ranchi,
Region Ranchi who
prescribed me to
favour the accused
person in under trial
case RC No. 20 (a)/
95 (DHN).
35 The complaint The CPIO was The CPIO The information
dated 17.10.03 directed to check responded that which was the
against Shri R. receipt register receipt register subject of the
N. Das was not thereafter a do not show any request was
received in the suitable reply be entry regarding destroyed only to
office of CPIO. sent to the receipt of shield Shri R. N.
appellant. complaint dated Das, the then SR.
17.10.03. PP, CBI, ACB,
Dhanbad who did
not appear in any
case/ court on 12,
13, 14.5.2003 and
8.8.2003 whereas
salary for these
dates was paid to
him.
37 The CPIO The CPIO was The CPIO FAA has yet not
responded that directed to check responded that responded the
receipt register the receipt of the receipt register request only to
of the office of letter dated 3.9.03 showing an shield Shri B. B.
the CPIO does and there after a entry regarding Mishra, thethen Dy.
not show the reply be sent to receipt of the Inspector General
receipt of the the appellant. letter dated of Police, Ranchi,
letter dated 3.3.2009 which Region Ranchi who
3.9.03. was forwarded prescribed me to
to the office of favour the accused
FAA on 16.9.03. persons in under
trial case C No. 20
(a)/95/D.
12
We have also examined the issues point-wise in the hearing. On
question at No 22 SP CBI, Dhanbad Shri V.P. Arya submitted that by his
application of 19-1-2004 submitted in continuation of the complaint of 16-10-
2003 appellant Shri Rajender Singh has withdrawn his complaint through a
letter of 22-1-2004. This also disposes of point No. 24.
Regarding question Nos. 26 and 27 CPIO Shri V.P. Arya submitted that
the case at present is subjudice and disclosing the information sought by
appellant including a copy of his own representation will be against the
interest of justice.
With regard to question Nos. 35 and 37 Shri Arya submitted that the
complaint had not been received and if appellant is able to submit any receipt
he will renew his effort to trace the record. The question at point No. 37 is
also related to the application of 3-9-03 and, therefore, answered in response
to question No. 26.
Appellant Shri Rajender Singh submitted that he had indeed withdrawn
the complaint of 16.10.03 on 22.1.’04 but the complaint was never returned to
him, the copy of which he is now seeking. He also admitted that he does
have a copy of representation of 3-9-03 but he has sought the information
because he wishes to know the noting made on it and the manner of its
disposal. He also submitted that this information has not been submitted to
the trial court and, therefore, has no bearing on the prosecution of the case.
Finally, Shri Rajender Singh submitted that CBI is not in the practice of
providing receipts to applications, hence he is not in possession of any receipt
of the application of 3-9-03, but has supplied a copy, whereas he is aware of
the fact that an enquiry was conducted in this matter.
DECISION NOTICE
Having heard the arguments and examined records we hereby direct
as follows:
13
i) Notwithstanding that the complaint of 16-10-03 submitted by
complainant Shri Rajender Singh has subsequently been
withdrawn or not, CPIO Shri Arya has in compliance with the
directions of 1st Appellate Authority checked the receipt register
and found that complaint had been received but is no longer
available. Although he has mentioned that enquiry to fix the
responsibility with this is being conducted we have not been told
of any conclusion. Misplacement of official records without
explanation is a serious breach of administrative responsibility.
The DIG, CBI Shri AK Singh is directed to take serious note
of this report, fix responsibility and take suitable action
against the delinquent official. On the other hand, if a copy of
the complaint has been traced, this may be supplied forthwith to
appellant Shri Rajender Singh. This exercise will be completed
within 15 days of the date of issue of this decision notice.
ii) On the question of exemption from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (h)
sought by CPIO with regard to question Nos. 26 and 27, this
objection had not been upheld by 1st Appellate Authority Shri
A.K. Singh, DIG, as he has explained in the hearing. Besides if
the representation on the basis of which the matter is now under
prosecution is not the property of the Court, it becomes the duty
of the public authority that is holding the information to provide
the same u/s 2 (j). In this context the CPIO will now take action
as per the ruling of Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 3114/2007 in
case of Bhagat Singh Vs. Chief Information Commissioner
in which Ravinder Bhat J has ruled as follows:
12. The Act is an effectuation of the right to freedom of speech
and expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society,
information and access to information holds the key to resources,
benefits, and distribution of power. Information, more than any
other element, is of critical importance participatory democracy.
By one fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and
official barriers that had previously impeded information, has
been swept aside. The citizen and information seekers have,
subject to a few exceptions, an overriding right to be given
information on matters in the possession of the state and public
14
agencies that are covered by the Act. As is reflected in its
preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote
transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the government and
its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of
the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions
contained therein.
13 Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the
rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8
being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to
be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as
to shadow the very right self. Under Section 8,exemption from
releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of
investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
information, the authority withholding information must show
satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information
would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should
be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered
should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this
consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would
become the haven for dodging demands for information.
For the above reasons this information will be provided to
appellant Shri Rajender Singh within 10 working days of the
date of issue of this decision notice.
iii) Since there is no receipt and no other documentary evidence to
support the fact that the application of 3-9-03 has, in fact, been
received by the then CPIO, SP, CBI, ACB, we cannot see any
grounds for our interference in the response provided by CPIO
with regard to question Nos. 35 and 37.
With this the appeal is allowed in part. Announced in the hearing. Notice
of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
6-2-2009
15
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
6-2-2009
16