CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00531 dated 27-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Rohtas Chand
Respondent: Delhi Police
FACTS
By an application of 19-12-06 Head Constable Rohtas Chand of Palam
Colony, New Delhi applied to the Dy. Secretary (Finance), Budget Dep’t.
GNCTD seeking the following information:
“Under Right of Information Act u/s 6 (3) of this act if it is not
related to you please send it to the officer related to this matter.
(i) ACP scheme benefit.
(ii) Last 2 years.
(iii) Letter Regd. Post No. RL-1409 dated 29.7.2006 & RI-905
dated 11.2.2006.
I state that the information sought does not fall with in the
restrictions contained in section 6 of the Act and to the best of
my knowledge it pertains to your office D. A. Branch.”
To this he received a reply dated 22-2-2007 from Shri Deependra
Pathak, PIO & Addl. CP, General Administration claiming that the application
had been received from the Home Department, GNCTD on 29-1-07 as follows:
“The opinion has been received in this regard from the MHA
vide letter No. 14011/181/05-UTP, GOI/MHA dated 21.12.2006:-
“So long as RRs describe such appointment to the post of HC
(AWO) on promotion, there is no scope for a re-consideration of
our earlier stand. Also, direct recruitment is not restricted to
particular categories, and the RRs prescribe the method of
recruitment as ‘By promotion, failing which by direct recruitment,
failing which by transfer on deputation’. It would appear that
‘absorption’ as a matter was not envisaged which prescribing
the RRs.”
The matter has again been taken with GNCT of Delhi stating
therein that amendment of Rule 17-B (IV) for the post of HC
(AWO). As per MHA’s decision that those appointed as HC
(AWO) from the rank of Constable shall be deemed to be on
“Promotion” and not “Fresh appointment”, which has placed
them in an adverse position vis-à-vis their counterparts in the IB,
in whose cases appointment of Security Asstt. (Constable) to
JIO-II (HC-WT) is shown as on “Transfer of service” basis vide1
this Hdqrs. D. O. No. 1067/P/Br./PHQ (AC-VI) dated 12.1.07 in
favour of HC (AWOs).”
Upon this Shri Rohtas Chand moved his first appeal on 13-3-07 and
received a reply on 15-5-07 again from Shri Deependra Pathak, PIO & ACP,
General Administration stating that his first appeal has been disposed of and
the copy of the order had already been sent to him. A copy of this order was
endorsed to Police HQ office asking that the original copy together with its
enclosure be delivered to appellant Shri Rohtas Chand against a proper
receipt. However, Shri Rohtas Chand moved his second appeal before us on
26-5-07 with the following prayer:
“Kindly grant me 2nd benefit of ACP Scheme after 24 years
due to Govt. of India’s order.”
The appeal was heard on 27-10-2008. The following are present.
Appellants
Shri Rohtas Chand.
Shri Hitesh Narayan.
Respondents
Shri Naved Mumtaz, DCP/Commn.
S. I. Kewal Krishan, D-55.
Shri Ashwani Kumar,
The prayer of appellant, as can be seen, is well beyond the purview of
the RTI Act and therefore the jurisdiction of this Commission. Besides,
appellant submitted before us that he had by now received the benefits of the
ACP scheme, but that in providing this Department had deducted some other
benefits. DCP Shri Naved Mumtaz submitted that the information sought and
the grievance expressed in the present case has, in fact, been addressed.
The delay in response has resulted from the fact that the Finance Department
forwarded the application of 19-12-06 to the Home Department by letter of 12-
1-07 which was transferred by the Home Department to the Addl.
Commissioner of Police on 29-1-07 after which the response was given by the
DCP well within the mandated period of 30 days allowed him.
DECISION NOTICE
2
Clearly the prayer moved by appellant Shri Rohtas Chand in his
second appeal places this well outside our jurisdiction. There is now no
further information pending in that sought by appellant in his original
application of 19-12-06. Any further grievance he may have accruing from
this will have to be addressed to the normal grievance redress machinery of
the Delhi Police or to the Delhi Public Grievances Commission. There is no
further cause of action by this Commission with regard to the information
sought by appellant Shri Rohtas Chand.
On the other hand there is little doubt that the information provided to
the appellant Shri Rohtas Chand had been provided exceeding the time limit
prescribed under the RTI Act. PIO Shri Daljit Singh, Dy. Secretary, Finance
(Exp.) by forwarding the application to Addl. Secretary (Home) only on 12-1-
07 has far exceeded the time limit prescribed for transfer within Section 6 (3)
of the RTI Act 2005. Similarly Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, Dy. Secretary (Home)
GNCTD has, in forwarding this application to DCP (Hqrs.) only on 29-1-07
again violated Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act. Both Shri Daljit Singh and Dr. Anil
Kumar Agarwal will show cause why this should not be held liable for penalty
between the lapse of 5 days from receipt of the application and its transfer
from their offices @ Rs. 250/- a day till the date when the application was
actually forwarded by each. This they may do in writing within 15 days of the
date of issue of this decision notice to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt.
Registrar, CIC.
The appeal before us in substance falling clearly outside our
jurisdiction is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
27-10-2008
3
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
27-10-2008
4