The Public Authority admits to providing wrong information to the appellant
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) of Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a particular FIR. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the PIO of the South West District (SWD) and to the PIO of the Crime Branch for providing requisite information directly to the appellant. The PIO (SWD) informed that the entire investigation of the case was being done by Crime Branch and that his RTI application had already been transferred to PIO (Crime Branch) by the PIO (PHQ) for directly providing information to the appellant. The PIO stated that after looking into stock register from 2007 no such entry in the stock register was found based on reply received from deemed PIO. The appeal filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was not entertained on the grounds of it being time barred.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant asked about the use of two Blank Hard Drive in the case with a particular serial numbers. The appellant sought photocopies of the bills /vouchers of these Hard Drives.
The respondent admitted that wrong reply has been furnished by deemed PIO. The stock register was shown to the Court wherein it was proved that two hard disks were issued by HAG. The appellant desired to know whether correct information has been provided to him in reply to his RTI application. The respondent clarified during the hearing that the entire matter was explained before the Court and the Register was also shown to the Court showing issuance of the two Blank Hard Drives. The Court has accepted the stock register on record and convicted the appellant/ accused for the offence he was being tried. The PIO also informed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against deemed PIO’s HC Sushil Kumar and SI Khem Chand for providing wrong information.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that as the record has already been accepted as genuine by the Court and the concerned officials have been proceeded against for providing wrong information, there is no reason to pass any directions to the respondent.
Citation: Mr. Rajpal Singh v. Delhi Police in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002233
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1459
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission