Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1933
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Shri Heeralal Samariya, CJ
Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
PIO, North West District – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/618380 | Complaint No. CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/628016
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Mr Rajbir Singh, ACP, Ms. Pramod Kumar, SHO, Mr. Vijay Singh, ASI
Disciplinary proceedings against government employees are classified as personal information and exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, protecting individual privacy.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Disciplinary proceedings against government employees - The Commission upheld the PIO's refusal to disclose personal information regarding disciplinary actions against police officials, citing Supreme Court rulings that classify such details as personal information exempt from disclosure. (Paras 13, 59)
(B) Information sought under RTI - The appellant sought detailed information regarding disciplinary actions against specific police officials, but was denied based on exemptions under the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide updated status on the complaint. (Paras 1, 2)
(C) Malafide intention - The Commission found no malafide intention in the PIO's response, thus no action was warranted under sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about disciplinary actions against police officials, which was denied by the PIO citing personal information exemptions under the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The Commission determined that the PIO correctly cited exemptions under the RTI Act and directed the PIO to provide the appellant with the status of actions taken on his complaint.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the PIO's refusal to disclose information was justified and if there was malafide intent in denying the information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disciplinary proceedings are personal information and exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, affirming the protection of personal data.
Result: Second Appeal disposed of, with directions to provide updated status on the complaint.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. timeline of rti application and appeals (Para 1) |
Information sought and background of the case:
(1)CIC/DEPOL/A/2024/618380 (2)CIC/DEPOL/C/2024/628016 The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.11.2023 seeking information on following points:-
“Says that ‘Explanation has been issued to erring police officials viz (1) HC Umesh Belt No.- 440/NW, PIS No. 28981886 and (2) Insp. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Belt No.- DI/711, PIS No.-16970134 SHO/Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.’
a. Please provide me with the certified copy of the explanation issued to both the erring officials.
b. Please inform me that under which section of the rules / regulations etc the action is been / being taken against the people at fault i.e. SHO Sudhir Sharma and Mr Umesh. I am also to be provided with the certified copies of said rules and regulation under which action is been / being taken.
c. Please provide me with the certified copy of the reply / rejoinder given by both of the respective erring officials in respect to the explanation issued to both the erring officials.
d. Please inform me the status of the action taken.
e. Please provide me with the certified copies of the action taken report of the same.
f. Please inform me the Decision given by the competent authority in Delhi Police in respect of the final disposal of the said findings and action taken against both the erring officials. Please also provide me with the certified copies of all these documents.
g. Please inform me the status of compliance / execution / implementation of the Decision of the competent authority in Delhi Police in respect of the final disposal of the said findings and action taken against both the erring officials.
h. Please inform me that what is the minimum action that can be taken against a police person for such blunt and intentional mistake, when denied the bribe money. Please inform me the relevant section of such rules / regulations etc which warrants this action.
i. Please inform me that what is the maximum action that can be taken against a police person for such blunt and intentional mistake, when denied the bribe money. Please inform me the relevant section of such rules / regulations etc which warrants this action.
2. Report of SI Rupesh Raj, EO/Vig/NWD Complaint ref No. PHC-127/C/DCP/NWD dated 22.02.2023, (copy of above Report is attached with this RTI Application) and says that ‘Hence from the enquiry conducted so far there is lapse on the part of HC Umesh Belt No.- 440/NW, PIS No. 28981886 (present posting -HAT/NWD) for keeping the said complaint pending till date and supervisory lapse on part of Insp. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Belt No.- D-I/711, PIS No.-16970134 SHO/Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
Both of them has not followed the guidelines laid down in SO No. 37/22. Hence, suitable disciplinary action against HC Umesh Belt No.- 440/NW, PIS No. 28981886 and Insp. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Belt No.- D-I/711, PIS No.-16970134 SHO/Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, may kindly be taken’
a. Please provide me with the certified copy of the Disciplinary Action taken against both the erring officials.
b. Please inform me that under which section of the rules / regulations etc the action is been / being taken against the people at fault i.e. SHO Sudhir Sharma and Mr Umesh. I am also to be provided with the certified copies of said rules and regulation under which action is been / being taken.
c. Please provide me with the certified copy of the reply / rejoinder given by both of the respective erring officials in respect to the Disciplinary Action taken against both the erring officials.
d. Please inform me the status of the action taken.
e. Please provide me with certified copies of the action taken report of the same.
f. Please inform me the Decision given by the competent authority in Delhi Police in respect of the final disposal of the said findings and action taken against both the erring officials. Please also provide me with the certified copies of all these documents.
g. Please inform me the
