1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.06.2021 seeking information on the following:-
Image
2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2021. The FAA/DCP, Dwarka District, vide order dated 17.08.2021 stated as under:-
Image
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing
4. A written submission has been received from the PIO and Addl DCP, Dwarka District vide letter dated 30.06.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
5. A written submission was also received from the PIO, Vigilance Unit, Delhi Police vide letter dated 09.07.2022 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was received through the Dwarka District vide letter dated 28.07.2021. After taking assistance of the concerned officer u/s 5 (4), a point wise reply was provided to the Appellant on 24.08.2021. No first appeal against the reply was received by them. Furthermore, photocopies of Vigilance Verification No 133/20 after severing the names, identity, statements of witnesses and other confidential part as per Section 8 (1) (j) (g) and 10 of the Act was provided to the Appellant on 13.10.2021 in response to the first appeal dated 19.08.2021 received through email against the reply of PIO Vigilance dated 28.05.2021. Moreover, the Appellant was also offered inspection of records earlier vide letter dated 25.08.2021 which he did not avail of.
6. The Appellant’s representative Shri Melvin A D’ Souza participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the issuance of connivance of the police officials with the accused and delay in concluding the investigation were not addressed in the gist of the inquiry report provided to him. Thus, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and desired the Commission’s intervention for rectification of the same.
7. The Respondent represented by Shri Ravindra Singh, ACP, Dwarka; Smt Rajni Maini, WSI, I/c RTI Cell, Dwarka District; Smt Sanjita, ACP Vigilance Unit and Shri Prashant, HC, RTI Cell, Vigilance Unit participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Singh stated that information as per available record was provided to the Appellant and the case regarding which information was sought is pending trial in Dwarka Court.
Decision:
8. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
9. With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/609317
10. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 15.09.2020 seeking information on the following 32 points:-
Image
11. The PIO/Addl. DCP, Dwarka District, vide letter dated 13.10.2020 replied as under:-
Image
Image
12. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2021. The FAA/DCP, Dwarka District, vide order dated 29.10.2021 stated as under:-
Image
13. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing
14. A written submission has been received from the PIO and Addl DCP, Dwarka District vide letter dated 30.06.2022 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
15. The Appellant’s representative Shri Melvin A D’ Souza participated in the hearing through video conference. He alleged that there was discrepancy in the information provided by the Respondent since certain forged statements were provided to him. Thus, he prayed to the Commission to remand the matter back to the PIO for a revised response.
16. The Respondent represented by Shri Ravindra Singh, ACP, Dwarka; Smt Rajni Maini, WSI, I/c RTI Cell, Dwarka District; Smt Sanjita, ACP Vigilance Unit and Shri Prashant, HC, RTI Cell, Vigilance Unit participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Singh stated that the detailed inquiry report was already provided to the Appellant.
Decision
17. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and the apprehension raised by the Appellant during the hearing challenging the accuracy of the information provided to him, the Commission remands the instant matter back to the FAA and DCP, Dwarka District, Delhi Police to re-examine it and pronounce a reasoned and speaking order after allowing an opportunity of fair hearing to the Appellant by 31.08.2022 under intimation to the Commission.
18. With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(3) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/623730
19. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated17.04.2021 seeking information on the following:-
Image
20. The PIO/Addl. DCP, Vigilance, vide letter dated 19.05.2021 replied as under:-
Image
21. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2021. The FAA/Addl CP, Vigilance, vide order dated 08.06.2021 stated as under:-
Image
22. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing
23. A written submission was also received from the PIO, Vigilance Unit, Delhi Police vide letter dated 09.07.2022 wherein while reiterating the earlier replies of the PIO/ FAA it was stated that photocopies of Vigilance Verification No 133/20 after severing the names, identity, statements of witnesses and other confidential part as per Section 8 (1) (j) (g) and 10 of the Act was provided to the Appellant on 13.10.2021 in response to the first appeal dated 19.08.2021 received through email against the reply of PIO Vigilance dated 28.05.2021. Moreover, the Appellant was also offered inspection of records earlier vide letter dated 25.08.2021 which he did not avail of. In addition it was stated that the earlier reply to the RTI application was provided under the signature of Shri Pardeep Kumar, the then APIO/ACP/Vigilance and now the applications are replied under the signature of PIO/ Vigilance only as directed by the Commission in CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/698425.
24. The Appellant’s representative Shri Melvin A D’ Souza; Shri Ravindra Singh, ACP, Dwarka; Smt Rajni Maini, WSI, I/c RTI Cell, Dwarka District; Smt Sanjita, ACP Vigilance Unit and Shri Prashant, HC, RTI Cell, Vigilance Unit participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri D Souza stated that he does not wish to pursue the instant matter any further.
Decision
25. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by the Appellant not to pursue the matter any further, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as “withdrawn
(4) CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/623415
26. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 06.09.2020 seeking information on the following:-
Image
27. The PIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 01.10.2020 replied as under:-
Image
28. In compliance with the FAA’s order, the letter dated 17.05.2021 furnished the report received North West District, wherein it was required copy of documents cannot be provided to the is under investigation. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, instant Second Appeal. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. that the reasons due to which impediment was caused in completing the investigation as sought in point no 2 of the RTI application was not provided. In addition, he stated that a certified copy of th UIDAI about non disclosure of Aadhar card details of the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First . The FAA/DCP, North-West District, vide order dated stated as under:- FAA’s order, the PIO/Addl. DCP, North-West District, vide letter dated 17.05.2021 furnished the report received from ACP/Subhash P North West District, wherein it was stated that as per section 8(1)h of RTI Act the required copy of documents cannot be provided to the Appellant, since the case , the Appellant approached the Commission with the ing in Course of Hearing: participated in the hearing through video conference. that the reasons due to which impediment was caused in completing the investigation as sought in point no 2 of the RTI application was not provided. In a certified copy of the correspondence received from the UIDAI about non disclosure of Aadhar card details of a third party to the Respondent except in case where an order was obtained from the High Court should be provided. He also stated that information regarding the action taken on the IO subsequent to his complaint cannot be denied to him citing third party personal information since he is himself the Complainant in the case.
29. The Respondent represented by Smt Indira Vati, ACP, North West District; Shri Joginder, SI, North West District; Shri Vijay Singh, ASI, I/c Appeal Cell, North West District and Shri Harvinder Singh, HC, North West District participated in the hearing through video conference. Smt Indira Vati stated that the information regarding the action taken on Appellant’s complaint was provided by them. The UIDAI objected to disclosure of Aadhar card details of a third party except in case where an order was obtained from the High Court. The same was communicated to the Appellant during the proceedings of the trial pending before the Court. Inspection of record was also facilitated to the Appellant. However, certified copies of documents were not provided u/s 8 (1) (h) as prosecution in the matter is still pending. On being queried by the Commission regarding the action taken against the IO as sought in point no 3 of the RTI application, Smt Indira Vati stated that no action has been taken.
Decision
30. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO cum Addl DCP, North West District, Delhi Police to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised response with the updated factual position in the matter to the Appellant by 31.08.2022 under intimation to the Commission.
31. With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
