Intelligence Bureau, MHA - Court of Inquiry

Central Information Commission
 थ ,  
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
 द, New Delhi  110067
   / Second Appeal No. CIC/INBRU/A/2022/128493
 
Ms. Ashnoor Manku
with Smt. Mandeep Kaur  mother of Appellant
  /Appellant
VERSUS/
PIO, Intelligence Bureau, MHA
Through: Ms. B C Rymbai  JDD/E, CPIO and
Shri Suresh Chand Pal  SO/LC
 दण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023
Date of Decision : 08.05.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.07.2021
PIO replied on : 12.07.2021
First Appeal filed on : 16.07.2021
First Appellate Order on : 19.08.2021
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.06.2022
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.07.2021 seeking the following
information:-
The CPIO/Joint Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, MHA vide letter dated
12.07.2021 replied as under:-
Page 2 of 2
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First
Appeal dated 16.07.2021. The FAA/Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, MHA vide
order dated 19.08.2021 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the
instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing is held through video conference upon serving notice of hearing in advance
to both parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and they reiterated
their respective contentions as already discussed above. It has been contended from
the Appellants side that a copy of the report of the Court of Inquiry, has not been
furnished by the Respondent despite repeated assurances.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records and hearing the averments of the parties, the reply sent by
the Respondent is found appropriate and in consonance with the provisions of the
RTI Act. However, as a humane gesture and in the interest of natural justice if a
Court of Inquiry was conducted based on a complaint filed by the Appellant, the
outcome thereof should be conveyed to the Appellant, even if outside the purview of
the RTI Act. The Respondent may also consider dissemination of a copy of report
demanded by the Appellants mother, taking a sympathetic view considering the
peculiar facts of the matter, wherein an employee of the Respondent has been
alleged to have abandoned his wife and child.
 The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
 Y. K. Sinha (. . ᭠ह)
 Chief Information Commissioner (   Ღ )
Authenticated true copy
(ण ᭜ )
S. K. Chitkara (. . ट)
Dy. Registrar (-)/011-26186535