CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00715 dated 15.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Sunil Kumar
Respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic)
Facts
:
By an application of 23.11.06, received in the Office of DCP (Traffic) on
23.12.06, Shri Sunil Kumar of Malikpur Delhi sought the following information:
“I want to know that why and how I have been dismissed under
Rule 5(1) of C.S.S., when it is not applicable in my case. Please
provide the information because it is question of future of
appellant.”
To this he received a reply on 15.1.07 from the DCP (Traffic) as follows:
“While filling the recruitment form you have written ‘No’ in reply to
325/24 IPC PS Model Town and have hidden the fact, which was
later on substituted with ‘Yes’ by an Officer of any office. Besides,
while applying you had given Permanent & Temporary address as
N-11, New Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi whereas in
verification form you had recorded it as House No. 383, Gali No. 8,
Sant Nagar, New Delhi as temporary and V&PO Jarara, PS Surir,
Distt. Mathura (U.P.) as Permanent address. For this reason, your
services were terminated under sub Rule 5, C.C.S. (Temp. Service)
Rules, 1965. “
In the meantime appellant had already moved his first appeal on 5.1.07
before the Police Commissioner, Police Headquarters upon which Shri M.S.
Upadhyaya Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic) and First Appellate Authority,
after examining the case in detail, directed as follows:
“As far as complaint of not providing him the requisite information to
the appellant in the stipulated time period under RTI Act 2005 is
concerned, I have examined the issue and found that the
application submitted by Shri Sunil Kumar in Police Headquarters
was received in the office of PIO/ Traffic from the office of DCP/IV
Bn. DAP on 22.12.2006 vide Memo No. 21/APIO/AP/IV Bn. DAP
dated 20.12.2006. The requisite information related to his
termination from the service was sent to the applicant vide letter1
No. 248/Complt. Br. Traffic dated 15.1.2007 by PIO/ Traffic which is
within the time limit as given in sub-section (1) of section 7 of Right
to Information Act-2005. As the application of the appellant was
received by PIO/Traffic on 20.12.2006 and the requisite information
was sent to him on 15.1.2007 i.e. within 30 days of the receipt of
application, the contention of the appellant that the officials
concerned did not provide him the requisite information is not true.
Since the requisite information sought by the appellant has been
provided to him by PIO/ Traffic, no further action is required to be
taken by the undersigned being the appellate authority and hence,
the appeal is not accepted.”
Appellant has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“(a) pass order directing the concerned officials i.e. the
respondents to perform their duties diligently and to
provide the information sought for by the appellant, at
the earliest possible;
(b) impose penalty upon the erring/ guilty officials as
provided under the relevant provisions of law so that in
future no official could date to shirk from his duties;
(c) provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the
appellant to explain his case in person;
(d) any other or further relief (s) which this Hon’ble
Commission may deem fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in
favour of the appellant and against the respondents.”
The appeal was heard on 16.10.08. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Sunil Kumar
Shri Inderjit Singh
Respondents
Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) HQ Delhi – PIO
Shri Mukesh Chander, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic),Delhil;1st appellate
authority.
Shri Inderjit Singh, assisting appellant, submitted a copy of a letter received
from DCP (Traffic) on 23.2.07 in which the entries to Col. 11A & B are as follows:
2
a) Have you ever been prosecuted? Remained under House
Arrest or had furnished any bond or fined or have been
declared as defaulter or you have been deprived from
appearing in any exam by any Public Service Commission or
declared unfit for any service ?
Yes – case file No. 339/93 u/s 325/34 IPC.
b) Is any case pending in any Court of Law at the time of filling
of this form? If answer is yes, then provide details of
Prosecution, house arrest, arrest, fine, penalty for default
etc.
Yes – as above. “
He, therefore, stated that the information, on the basis on which he was
dismissed, is incorrect.
DECISION NOTICE
Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar has in his application clearly sought to know the
grounds for his dismissal, which have been provided to him. Whether these are
justifiable grounds or not is not for this Commission to decide, nor does it merit
processing of his application under the RTI Act 2005. This is an issue falling
squarely within the jurisdiction of CAT. The contention of appellant that the
information provided to him was incorrect or misleading is also not justified
because he has asked for grounds of his dismissal, which have been disclosed
to him. Appellant Shri Sunil Kumar has also been provided with a copy of his
application form in the possession of the concerned public authority. If he feels
that the allegation of tampering with his form is unjustified remedy will lie
elsewhere, since this Commission has jurisdiction only to enforce providing
information as held by or under the control of a public authority, which in this
case has been provided.
3
Respondents inform us that this matter had been decided by CAT as well
as by the High Court. If appellant feels, therefore, that CAT has come to its
conclusion on the basis of forged documents, he is free to agitate the matter
before that authority. This is not an issue meriting interference by this
Commission. The appeal is, therefore, unsustainable and is dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16.10.2008
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
16.10.2008
4