Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/000014
Name of Appellant : Sh. Pravesh Choubey
Name of Respondent : Delhi Office, Security,
Vinay Marg
Background
Sh. Pravesh Choubey, Inspector, Delhi Police, the Appellant, had filed an
application dated 2.07.2009 before the CPIO, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi,
Security, seeking information under the RTI Act. as follows:
“1. Whether nonacknowledgement of punishment orders of censure arising out
of show cause notices, carry any weight in respect of one’s promotion to DANIPS
cadre?
2. What is the time limit within which the disciplinary authority is required to
pass his final orders in a departmental enquiry after receiving the findings from the
enquiry officer (‘EO’)? Kindly provide with the copy of the circular or relevant
extracts of the compilation which provides for the same.
3. If an officer is dealt with departmentally for the supervisory lapse of his
subordinate officer (being the principal offender), what shall be the fate of such a
departmental enquiry against such an officer if his subordinate officer is
exonerated in toto?
4. Kindly provide with the copy of acknowledgement bearing the signatures of
the undersigned officer confirming the receipt of the punishment orders arising out
of the following censures awarded to him
i. Censure dated 17.09.04.
ii. Censure dated 25.09.04.
iii. Censure dated 10.05.05
iv. Censure dated 22.08.05
v. Censure dated 8.09.05
vi. Censure dated 23.02.06"
In his RTI application Sh. Pravesh Chaubey also requested for disposal of the
application within period of 48 hours. of its receipt under the provisions of Section
7(1), subpara 2 of the RTI Act. 2005. The Respondent however, decided that the
provisions of Section 7(1) para 2 do not apply in this case since contents of the
RTI application related to promotion / punishment and is not covered under the
provisions of Section 7(1) para(2) of the RTI Act. Meanwhile, since subject matter
of the application also concerned other Public Authorities, copies of his application
was transferred by the CPIO / Security to PIO / PHQ and PIO, Vigilance vide letter
dated 3.07.2009 under the intimation to the Appellant. Meanwhile Sh. Pravesh
Chubey filed an appeal dated 6.07.2009 to the First Appellate Authority against
noncompliance of the request for the supply of the information under life & liberty
clause. The FAA decided the appeal vide his order dated 13.07.2009, holding
that the appeal dated 6.07.2009, requesting for disposal within a period of 48
hours of its receipt is not applicable in this case. The PIO / Security was also
instructed to furnish the reply to the RTI application dated 2.07.2009.
The Appellant has thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Commission
in which he submits that the information requested has not been supplied to him
within the statuary time limit prescribed in the RTI Act, into a matter pertaining to
his life and liberty.
2. The matter was heard on 13.04.2010.
3. The Appellant was not present.
4. Sh. Khilari Ram, APIO/Sec and Sh. Ram Chander, S.I. / Sec.
represented the Respondent Public Authority.
During the hearing the Respondent have submitted written statement signed by
the CPIO / Dy. Commissioner of Police / Security. They submit that in response to
the RTI application the CPIO / Dy. Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Delhi vide
his letter dated 16.07.2009 has replied to the Appellant as follows:
“1. It related to PHQ and your application has already been transferred to
PIO/Estt. By PIO/Security.
2. As per para (5) (a) of S.O. No. 125/2008, the enquiry officer shall take up
daytoday proceedings and shall try to complete the departmental enquiry within a
period of six months from the date of service of summary of allegations on the
defaulters, if possible.
3. This is a hypothetical question and does not come under RTI Act.
4. It does not relate to Vigilance Branch.”
The CPIO / Addl. Commissioner of Police, establishment as vide his letter dated
23.07.2009, replied as follows:
“It is intimated that the information as asked by you does not relates to
PIO/Estt./PHQ. However, the Govt. of India, M/o Home Affairs, has asked the
service particular of eligible Inspector of Delhi Police and others for their
appointment to DANIPS time to time. Delhi Police only send the service
particulars to MHA. The appointment to Inspector of Delhi Police to DANIPS is
being made by MHA being cadre controlling authority. As such the service
particulars of all the eligible Inspectors are sent to MHA as and when called by the
MHA with all records. As regards, the details/opinion on punishment
awarded/disciplinary action against the applicant. The copy of your application is
being sent to concerned PIO for sending the requisite information direct to you.”
The PIO / Security, after obtaining information from the concerned offices /
branches realized that the subject matter also pertained to PIO, East Dist. and
PIO, Traffic. Therefore, the PIO, Security vide his letter dated 28.07.2009 provided
part information to Pt. N. 4 available with him to the Appellant and forwarded
copies of the RTI application to the PIO, East Dist. and PIO, Traffic for necessary
action at their end. The CPIO / Security vide his letter provided the necessary
information in respect of Censure dated 10.05.2005, Censure dated 8.09.2005 and
Censure dated 23.02.3006. The CPIO / Traffic provided information to the
Appellant vide his letter dated 28.08.2009 in respect of Censure dated 25.09.2004,
the Dy .Commissioner of Police, East Dist. provided information vide letter dated
1.09.2009 in respect of Censure dated 1709.2004 and 22.08.2005.
During the hearing the Respondent submit that the RTI application involved
collecting information from various sources and hence some time has been taken
in providing the requisite information on each application.
After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents the Commission
upholds the decision of the Respondent that the RTI application was not a matter
of life and liberty and was, in fact, a matter relating to his promotion / punishment
and, therefore, not covered under the provisions of proviso to Section 7(1) of the
RTI Act, 2005. In so far as the replies to the RTI application is concerned,
requisite response to each of the queries has been provided by the Respondent.
Since, the matter has involved collecting of information from various units of Delhi
Police, the time taken by the Respondent is also explained. Therefore, the
Commission find no reason to proceed against the Respondent for delay in
responding to the RTI application.
With this order the matter is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
13.04.2010