CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000258 dated 13.3.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rajendra Singh
Respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Decision announced: 13.5.2010
Facts
:
In our decision of 27.11.08 in File No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00916, we had
directed as follows:
“Because the 1st appellate authority has not addressed the
questions of appellant, which are of direct concern to his public
authority and because appellant has pleaded no ground for making
a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or apprehension of malafide on the
part of the Department, the Commission has decided to remand
this appeal to Shri A.K. Singh, DIG, CBI/RO, 1st appellate authority,
at 2 Booty Road, Ranchi-834 008 who is directed to dispose of the
appeal, together with action on non-compliance with his orders, if
any found by him, within 15 working days from the date of receipt of
this decision, under intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar,
Central Information Commission. If not satisfied with the information
so provided, appellant Shri Rajendra Singh will be free to move a
fresh 2nd appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3). This Appeal now
stands disposed of accordingly.”
Subsequently, we have received a fresh appeal from Shri Rajendra Singh
of Vasant Kunj, New Delhi with the following prayer:
“16.1 To direct Shri R. N. Azad the then CPIO / SP to furnish
true information.
16.2 To impose penalty for furnishing false
information.
16.3 To recommend for disciplinary action under the
service rules applicable to him.
16.4 To pass any other order/s as the Hon’ble
Commission may deem fit and proper.”
The grounds for this appeal are as below:
1
“10. That Shri R. N. Azad vide his reply to the decision dated
8.4.2007 of FAA has furnished copy of extracts of note sheet
file of crime file in case of RC 6(A)/2003(DHN). The copy of
extracts of note sheet file of crime file in case of RC
6(A)/2003(DHN) are enclosed as Annexure 7/Cooly.
11. That the extracts of note sheet file of crime file in case of
RC6A)/2003(DHN) do not reflect reference of complaints dated 27.6.03
and 2.7.03.
12. That I submit that Shri R. N. Azad has furnished false
information to shield the officers, who fabricated false evidence against
the accused / persons.
13. That I moved 2nd appeal on 16.7.2007 before the Hon’ble
Commission. The copy of 2nd appeal is enclosed as Annexure 8/Colly.
14. That the hearing was held on 27.11.2008. The copy of
notice of CIC’s decision is enclosed as Annexure 9.
15. That the copy of notice of CIC’s decision dated 29.10.2008
against Shri R. N. Azad is also enclosed as Annexure 10/Colly.”
The appeal was heard on 13.5.2010. The following are present:
Appellant
Shri Rajendra Singh
Respondents
Shri V. P. Arya, SP, CBI / CPIO
We have received a FAX from Jt. Director, CBI, Patna seeking leave of
absence, as follows:
“SP, CBI, ACB Dhanbad (CPI)) has been nominated to represent
the first Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Director, CBI, Patna Zone,
Patna, during the hearing fixed on 13.5.2010 in the above
mentioned matter.”
Appellant Shri Rajendra Singh presented a copy of the order in first appeal
of DIG, CBI, ACR, Ranchi. In this decision, while directing compliance, appellate
authority DIG has observed as follows:
“Further with regard to Query No. 18, Appellant states that
information furnished by CPIO is false but basis of declaring such
information as false has not been offered by him. CPIO states that
whatever documents were available in the concerned file have
been provided to the Appellant.”
2
In compliance with this order, CPIO Shri V. P. Arya, SP, CBI, ACB
Dhanbad has written to appellant Shri Rajendra Singh on 23.12.08 inviting him
as follows:
“You are further requested to please visit this office to inspect the
concerned file of which copies of 9 pages have already been
supplied with regard to Query No. 18. All due and possible
assistance will be extended to you for inspection of the same.”
The documents sought with regard to queries No. 9 & 10 of the original
application of Shri Rajendra Singh have along with this letter been supplied to
appellant.
Query No. 18 of Shri Rajendra Singh’s original application reads as
follows:
“18. Copy of the extracts of relevant portion of file notings
wherein my complaint dated 27.6.2003 and 2.7.2003
regarding fabricating of the official records in case RC
6(A)/2003/(D) were dealt with.”
Appellant Shri Rajendra Singh explained that why he has stated that
information thus supplied is fabricated is because in the file of case RC No.
6(1)/2003(D), these complaints have not been addressed. The notings on these
complaints are in separate files and he wishes to have copies of those notings.
In response to this Shri Arya submitted that whereas he has offered file
inspection to Shri Rajendra Singh in Dhanbad, appellant Shri Rajendra Singh has
not visited the Office thus far. In a specific reply to Shri Rajendra Singh’s
contention regarding the files that he wishes to see, Shri Arya invited him to
specify which files exactly he wished to see and if these were in his possession,
they would be offered for inspection.
DECISION NOTICE
3
Appellant Shri Rajendra Singh is now advised to visit Dhanbad so as to
obtain the information he seeks after inspection. It is, however, clarified that if
the public authority does not hold the information – and appellant Shri Rajendra
Singh has implied that documents he seeks have been destroyed – these cannot
be now supplied by respondents. However, if established that these documents
did exist and have been unauthorizedly destroyed, this can form ground for
criminal petition on the part of appellant Shri Rajendra Singh. The RTI Act itself
indeed allows u/s 20 (1) for penalty for information, which is the subject of a
request, having been destroyed. This, however, can only be established once
the relevant files are asked for and inspected.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed with regard to question No. 18, as
offered by CPIO Shri V. P. Arya. However, to ensure compliance appellant Shri
Rajendra Singh is advised to visit Dhanbad not later than one month from the
date of receipt of this decision notice so as to conclude this matter. The appeal
is disposed of accordingly.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13.5.2010
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
13.5.2010
4