O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 I had submitted a complaint addressed to Director CBI, Lodhi Road New Delhi with copy to Sh. Raghvendra Vats, (IPS-2006) HOB, CBI, ACB, New Delhi on 20.11.2021 vide speed post no. RD419655712IN dated 20.11.2021. copy of the said complaint is enclosed for your kind reference in PDF format as annexure.

The aforesaid complaint was made against Sh. Sudhanshu Dhar Mishra, the SP. Mishra (IRS-2006), the then SP, CBI, New Delhi mental harassment and corrupt practice prevailed by him in CBI by misusing of his official position. The corrupt practice of Sh. Sudhanshu Dhar…….

….. It is leant that Sh. Sudhanshu Dhar Mishra was transferred from CBI, ACB, New Delhi in 2022 after the aforesaid complaint and later repatriated from CBI in mysterious circumstances in 2023.

It is therefore requested that the following information may kindly be provided under Right to Information Act 2005 w.r.t. corrupt practice and mental harassment act of Sh. Sudhanshu Dhar Mishra:

(i) Present status of the aforesaid complaint dated 20.11.21.

(ii) Whether any allegation made in complaint was enquired into.

(iii) The result of each of the allegation made in the complaint, if inquired into?

(iv) Whether the complaint is closed showing favour to Sh. Sudhanshu Dhar Mishra?

(v) If the aforesaid complaint is closed, then copy of closing reports?

…, etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:- “In this connection, it is to inform you that your complaint dated 2011.2021 has been closed.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.12.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. V.M Mittal SP and Anmol Sachan, DSP, attended the hearing in person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 13.09.2023, wherein, status of the complaint dated 20.11.2021, had been provided to the appellant.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that status of the complaint has been provided to the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that the CBI is placed in the Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information u/s 24(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Commission advises the CPIO to take precautions while replying to the RTI applications in future. Further, the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु(cid:17))

Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन(cid:18)ल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड(cid:18))

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Head Of Branch, Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, First Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003

2. Yatish Chandra Sharma Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:- Nil Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)