Central Information Commission
Maneesh Bisht vs Army Hq on 21 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721
Maneesh Bisht .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
ECHS Cell, Station
Headquarters, Haldwani,
PIN - 900281, C/o 56 APO ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025
Date of Decision : 20.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.03.2024
CPIO replied on : 23.03.2024
First appeal filed on : 28.03.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.04.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1. Annexed herewith please find a postal of Rs. 50/- for inspection of Public records/extracts under RTI Act 2005, between 1200 hours to 1300 hours on 02/04 March 2024.CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 1 of 18
2. The following Public Documents held in your custody will be inspected by the applicant.
(a) Monthly ECHS Veteran Meeting minutes (with photography & remarks) since year 2019 - till Feb 2024.
(b) (i) Complaint letters which where submitted by the individual against Krishna Hospital & Research Centre Haldwani in ECHS Cell since May 2022, & (") subsequent complaint (against Krishna Hospital) forwarded by Central Org on 29 July 2022 to lower formation & received by your ECHS Haldwani /Stn Hq to investigate the matter.
(c) HQ UB Area (A/ECHS) letter No. 196103/Comp/ECHS dated 03 Sep 2022.
(d). Names/list of Public worker/officer drawing payment from public fund, who took the charge of OIC ECHS Cell from May 2022 to 29 Feb 2024.
(e) Action taken by ECHS Cell/Stn HQs for releasing the amount of Rs.
1,000/-for penalty (Cost) & further submission of penalty (Cost), imposed by Honourable Consumer Commission Nainital on 28 December 2023 due to delay in submission Written Satement.
(g) Name of the public Officer (OIC ECHS Cell) who signed the Written statement for dated 28 Dec 2023 for Consumer Commission Nainital (as name of the Public Officer is missing & ambiquity of rank has been placed)."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 23.03.2024 stating as under:
"(a) Para 2 (a). Monthly ECHS Veteran Meeting minutes between 2019 to Aug 2023 is not held, hence not available. Therefore, cannot be provided.
(b) Para 2 (b).
(i) Complaint letters submitted by the individual against Krishna Hospital and Research Centre in ECHS Cell, Station Headquarters, Haldwani since May 2022 are fwd herewith.CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 2 of 18
(ii) Letters forwarded by Central Organisation on 29 Jul 2022 to lower formation and received by ECHS Cell, Stn Headquarters Haldwani cannot be provided for inspection under section 8 (e) of RTI Act 2005.
(c) 2005. Para 2 (c). Cannot be provided for inspection under section 8 (e) of RTI Act-
(d) 2005. Para 2 (d). Cannot be provided for inspection under section 8 (j) of RTI Act-
(e) Para 2 (e). Intimation not held hence cannot be provided for inspection.
(f) Para 2 (g). Cannot be provided under section 8 (j) of RTI Act-2005.
The above information has been furnished as per rules and guidelines."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 27.04.2024, stated as under:
2. "..Parawise reply of your application dated 28 Mar 24 is as under :-
(a) Para 2 (a). The point was implemented and fwd vide our letter No 401401/Med/ECHS PC/A dt 23 Mar 24. However, documents can not be provided for inspection under section 8 (e) of RTI Act-2005.
(b) Para 2 (b) (i). The same cannot be provided for inspection under section 8 (j) of RTI Act-2005. However, insp is not permitted and denied to you to take the enclosures without signatures of officer/PIO in every page of enclosures.
(c) Para 2 (b) (ii). It is for your information that all the Para and sub Paras of section 8 of the RTI Act 2005 are self explanatory, hence there is no need to give any reasons for not providing the documents for inspection neither by the PIO nor by the Ist Appellate Authority.
(d) No 401401/Med/ECHS PC/A dt 23 Mar 24. Para 2 (c). Suitable reply by the PIO has been dispatched vide our letter
(e) Para 2 (d). Reply on the subject by the PIO dispatched vide our letter No 401401/Med/ECHS PC/A dt 23 Mar 24.
(f) Para 2 (e). Reply by the PIO was dispatched vide our letter No 401401/Med/ECHS PC/A dt 23 Mar 24. However, as per RTI Act-2005, PIO can hold the application for 30 days. No written proof has been received by this office regarding imposed of penalty in the ongoing consumer case on 28 Dec 23, neither from the Consumer Court Forum or nor from the defending advocate. Necessary action will be taken by this office on receipt of letter from the said agencies.CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 3 of 18
(g) Para 2 (g). Suitable reply by the PIO dispatched vide our letter No 401401/Med/ECHS PC/A dt 23 Mar 24.
3. Furthermore, it is for your information that all the Para and sub Paras of section 8 of the RTI are self explanatory, hence there is no need to give any reasons for not providing the documents for inspection neither by the PIO nor by the Ist Appellate Authority..."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Written submission dated 05.11.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
1. "..15.10.2025 listed for hearing on 12.11.2025. Please refer Para 04 of your Notice /File No. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 dt
2. The additional Written submission with judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court & Hon'ble CIC, along with the online news paper copy & logical reasoning are being quoted/submitted in support of the second Appeal.
Para 2(a) of RTI Application: The RTI applicant was denied by the FAA by introducing section 8 1 (e) of RTI Act. The contest is being made by the Appellant is being submitted as under:
The appellant has taken paid membership of the ECHS scheme & is a veteran/stakeholder of the ECHS. The monthly ECHS Veteran meeting is open to all veteran/ stakeholders. Many ECHS authorities of the same department across the country are sharing the meetings in News Paper and Social media. The details mentioned below.
(a) The news paper HINDUSTAN (ह द िं स्
ु तान) dt 31 Oct 2025
published from Distt-Palamu Jharkhand has made a place in their news paper for the said monthly ECHS meeting with the name of officer In-charge/Chairman and names of the veterans/ beneficiaries who attended the meeting, with discussed agenda points for upgrading services the beneficiaries. The copy of new paper is annexed as Appendix 'A.
(b). ECHS Polyclinic Tuticorin Tamil Nadu is proactively uploading complete Vediography of monthly veteran ECHS meeting in since March 2025 in their You-tube channel @ECHSPOLYCLINICTUTICORIN for the veteran members, who could not attend the meeting. In the said meeting of public CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 4 of 18 interest, issues like, difficulty in re-imbursement of claims, timely availability of medicine, & and manner for execution of newly welfare provisions for the veterans/beneficiaries made by the Govt are being discussed/addressed with previous pending points & decision. The denial for sharing the said meeting minutes with the beneficiary is totally unjustified. Also, it is requested to direct the ECHS Haldwani to upload the monthly meeting minutes in their official website which is mandated by section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act 2005.
Para 2 b(i) of RTI Application FAA introduced new ground of denial by stating section 8 1(j) of RTI Act. The contest is being made by Appellant by submitting the under mentioned judgments:
Hon'ble CIC in a decision Avni Sharma Vs CPIO Indian Navy vide File No. CIC/INAVY/A/2024/111225 dt 16.09.2025 directed the CPIO to provide Appellant's own statement (documents) which was submitted by the appellant to the public authority. Similarly, the present Appellant may please be allowed to inspect the complaint letters (documents) submitted to ECHS Cell or copy of the requested documents may be provided. Para 2 b(ii) of RTI Application: CPIO/FAA cited 8 1(e) for denying the inspection of record/certified copy of Central Org letter dt 29 July 2022. The contest is being made by Appellant by submitting the under mentioned judgments-
(a) The Para 10 & 11 of the decision dated 07.10.2010 of Delhi High Court passed in WP(C) No.9355/2009 in the matter of Union of India Vs RS Khan, & at Para 20.3 20.4 of WP (C) 499/2012 & CM 1059/2012 of Delhi High Court in matter of Col VK Shad & Col PP Singh explain the applicability of Section 81
(e) (fiduciary relation), and is applicable, in case, if a third party seeks the performance conduct & disciplinary proceeding of an government servant (employee) which is available to the government (employer). Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE Anr Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011] by its decision dated 09.11.2011 at Para 21 by example has defined fiduciary relation for employer vis-à-vis employee for personal details & trade secrets.
(b) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal decided on 13 November 2019 at Para 5 produced as under স CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 5 of 18 Para 5 Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India had filed writ petition [Civil] No.288 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court, which was decided by the leamed Single Judge vide Judgment dt on 02 Sep, 2009, and the findings were summarized as:
"84"[] Re-point Nos. 1&2 Whether the CJI is a public Authority and whether the CPIO is a public authority of the Supreme Court, of India, is different from the office of CJI:, and if so, whether the act covers the office of CJI:
Answer. The CJI is public Authority under the Right to Information Act and the C.Jl holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice; that office is "Public Authority" under the act and is covered by its provisions.
Re-Point No.3: Whether asset declaration by Supreme court Judges, pursuant to the 1997 resolution are "information", under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Answer. It is held that the second part of the respondant's application, relating to declaration of assets by the Supreme Court Judges, is "Information" with the meaning of expression, under section 2(f) of the Act. The point is answered accordingly: the Information pertaining to declarations given, to the C.ll and the contents of such declaration are "information" and subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act.Re-Point No. 4
If such asset declaration are "Information" does the CJl hold them in a "fiduciary" capacity, and are they therefore, exempt from disclosure under Act.
Answer: The petitioners' argument about the C.JI holding assets declaration in a fiduciary capacity, (which would be breached if it is directed to be disclosed, in the manner sought by the applicant) is insubstantial. The C.Jl does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship The apex court at Para 89 in the said judgment upheld the judgment of Delhi Court dt 12th Jan 2010 after reviewing other judgment in respect to fiduciary relation
(c) Lt Gen (Retd) Avadesh Prakash Vs. Indian Army File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001300, CIC/LS/A/2010/000655 & CIC/LS/A2010/001603 decided on 25 April 2025 Para 41 produced as under "A bare reading of the above passage would indicate that the normal and routine acts and transaction and duties of public CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 6 of 18 servants cannot be categorized as fiduciary for the purpose of section 8 1(0), MoD appears to have written the letter to COAS for visiting the appellant with disciplinary proceedings graver than the ones recommended by the COAS. This appears to be a routine correspondence. There is nothing special about it. We have perused the said letter and find notings therein, disclosure whereof, is likely to impede the process of Investigation/prosecution. In the premises, we find it difficult to uphold the contention of Shri Chandrashekhar that the Army authorities are holding the MoD letter in a fiduciary capacity. If his contention were to be accepted, then the entire correspondence exchanged between various offices/departments of the Government will become privileged thereby nullifying the beneficial effect of RTI Act. "
Para 2 (c) of RTI Application: CPIO cited 8 1(e) to avoid disclosing of information: Contest for the asked information is being made by the Appellant is same above as Para 2 b (ii) of RTI Application. Also, internal communication letter within the same public department has been shared by the PIO earlier & is placed at SI No (e) of Para 13 of Check list of submitted 2d appeal. The claim for exemption was not made by PIO at that time.
Para 2 (d) of RTI Application: CPIO cited 8 1(j) to avoid disclosing of information. The contest is being made by Appellant by submitting the under mentioned judgments:-
(a) The Hon'ble CIC in his decision CIC/SB/A/2015/000516 in the case of Shri Amit Mahalwal Vs CPIO Delhi Police defines that "The Commission further observe that denial of information regarding duty roster and details about leave of public servant, except the reason for leave, is not a personal information and further the same relates relates to public activity/interest.
Hence, the information sought on point nos. 01 & 02 of the RTI Application is not exempted under section 8 1 (i) of the RTI Act".
(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commissioner. & Ors Special Leave petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 decided on 03 Oct 2012 via vide Para 12 13 13 & 14 explain the scope of Personal information of Public servant, that asked copies of memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the Public servant/employee from his employer, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son, income tax return, performance of an employee/officer CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 7 of 18 governed by service rules which falls under expression "personnel information".
(c) In judgment of Madras High Court in case of M Tarnilselvan Vs. The Distt Collector & 03 WP No. 33854 of 2024 others in his order at Para 12 states below:
"In the instant case the order impugned only state that the information sought is exempted under Section 8 of the Act as it relates to the personal information of the Public Servant/R-4. I am not able to bring myself to accept that. The service register of public servant would contain details regarding the date of joining the service, the transfers which the person has suffered, the Increments which had been granted the earned leave which had been availed and also weather any punishment have been inflicted during the period of service. These details particularly the date of joining and the date of attaining the age of superannuation are certainly not private information. The assets and liabilities are again not private. To a little, extent, if punishment had been imposed owing to various circumstances, they could be also termed as being private as disclosure of the same would put to stigma on the public servant. But once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned Thus, no personal information, as cited in the above judgments was requested by the RTI applicant/appellant from the PIO (ECHS Cell Haldwani).
(d) The list/names including tenure of Public officers are prominently displayed in the tenure board (which comes under document) in the Public offices to symbolize their honor, years of dedicated service, accountability, public scrutiny & commitment towards public. If the tenure board with name of Public officers are prominently displayed by the Public Authority, the public authority (ECHS Cell) cannot claim for exemption under section 8 1(j) of RTI Act.
(e) It is also submitted that many Govt offices Le Dept of Science & Technology, PMO office & various Public authorities has displayed the list of former secretaries & officers/directors in their official websites. Thus, the names of the Public officer cannot be withheld by claiming section 8 1(1) of RTI Act Para 2 (g) of RTI Application CPIO cited 8 1(j) to avoid disclosing of information: The contest is being made by the Appellant as made above at Para 2 (d) of RTI Application, & also submitting CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 8 of 18 the under mentioned decision of Hon'ble CIC, CIC/AD/A/2012/000184 decided on 30 Mar 2012 in case of Shri Sandeep Srivastava Vs. CPIO WC Railways. Para 03 of said judgment states:-
"After examining the record and upon hearing the submissions. I see no harm in disclosing this information (i.e name and designation of the officer whose signature was appearing on the HTC diary of 08 July 2010) to be Appellant.."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Absent
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.05.2024 is not available on record.
7. The Respondent was absent during hearing.
8. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he is a beneficiary of ECHS (Ex Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme) by paying onetime contribution of Rs. 30,000/-, & not taking monthly Fixed Medical Allowance from Govt by contributing the same for ECHS services. He averred that grievance/complaint was given to ECHS Haldwani & also to ECHS Delhi against empanelled hospital namely, Krishna Hospital in year 2022. The Public Authority (ECHS Delhi, Integrated HQ MoD Army) in reference to his previously filed RTI application replied that the grievance/complaint was forwarded to ECHS Haldwani on 29 Jul 2022 & the same is under progress. Hence, an RTI Application dated 01 Mar 2024 was submitted with ECHS Haldwani for monthly meeting minutes, progress done by ECHS authorities for the submitted complaints & name of the ECHS functionary (Officer Incharge ECHS Haldwani). After receiving RTI application the Public Authority (Office Incharge ECHS Cell) via their letter dated 01 Mar 2024 replied that the asked information will be forwarded for inspection as per sub section 1 of section 7 of the RTI CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 9 of 18 Act. However, the PIO vide letter dated 23.03.2024 denied access of all the documents on frivolous ground.He stated that he had submitted a grievance/complaint alleging medical malpractice by Krishna Hospital, Haldwani, and accordingly sought complete information and correspondence related to the aforementioned complaint/grievance from the concerned ECHS, Haldwani. A written submission has been received from the Appellant. the relevant extract whereof is as under:
2. The additional Written submission with judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court & Hon'ble CIC, along with the online news paper copy & logical reasoning are being quoted/submitted in support of the second Appeal.
Para 2(a) of RTI Application: The RTI applicant was denied by the FAA by introducing section 8 1 (e) of RTI Act. The contest is being made by the Appellant is being submitted as under:
The appellant has taken paid membership of the ECHS scheme & is a veteran/stakeholder of the ECHS. The monthly ECHS Veteran meeting is open to all veteran/ stakeholders. Many ECHS authorities of the same department across the country are sharing the meetings in News Paper and Social media. The details mentioned below.
(a) The news paper HINDUSTAN (ह द िं स् ु तान) dt 31 Oct 2025 published from Distt-Palamu Jharkhand has made a place in their news paper for the said monthly ECHS meeting with the name of officer In-charge/Chairman and names of the veterans/ beneficiaries who attended the meeting, with discussed agenda points for upgrading services the beneficiaries. The copy of new paper is annexed as Appendix 'A.
(b). ECHS Polyclinic Tuticorin Tamil Nadu is proactively uploading complete Vediography of monthly veteran ECHS meeting in since March 2025 in their You-tube channel @ECHSPOLYCLINICTUTICORIN for the veteran members, who could not attend the meeting. In the said meeting of public CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 10 of 18 interest, issues like, difficulty in re-imbursement of claims, timely availability of medicine, & and manner for execution of newly welfare provisions for the veterans/beneficiaries made by the Govt are being discussed/addressed with previous pending points & decision. The denial for sharing the said meeting minutes with the beneficiary is totally unjustified. Also, it is requested to direct the ECHS Haldwani to upload the monthly meeting minutes in their official website which is mandated by section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act 2005 Para 2 b(i) of RTI Application FAA introduced new ground of denial by stating section 8 1(j) of RTI Act. The contest is being made by Appellant by submitting the under mentioned judgments:
Hon'ble CIC in a decision Avni Sharma Vs CPIO Indian Navy vide File No. CIC/INAVY/A/2024/111225 dt 16.09.2025 directed the CPIO to provide Appellant's own statement (documents) which was submitted by the appellant to the public authority. Similarly, the present Appellant may please be allowed to inspect the complaint letters (documents) submitted to ECHS Cell or copy of the requested documents may be provided.
Para 2 b(ii) of RTI Application: CPIO/FAA cited 8 1(e) for denying the inspection of record/certified copy of Central Org letter dt 29 July 2022. The contest is being made by Appellant by submitting the under mentioned judgments -
(a) The Para 10 & 11 of the decision dated 07.10.2010 of Delhi High Court passed in WP(C) No.9355/2009 in the matter of Union of India Vs RS Khan, & at Para 20.3 20.4 of WP (C) 499/2012 & CM 1059/2012 of Delhi High Court in matter of Col VK Shad & Col PP Singh explain the applicability of Section 81
(e) (fiduciary relation), and is applicable, in case, if a third party seeks the performance conduct & disciplinary proceeding of an government servant (employee) which is available to the government (employer). Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE Anr Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay [Civil appeal No. CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 11 of 18 6454 of 2011) by its decision dated 09.11.2011 at Para 21 by example has defined fiduciary relation for employer vis-à-vis employee for personal details & trade secrets.
(b) The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal decided on 13 November 2019 at Para 5 produced as under Para 5" Aggrieved, the CPIO, Supreme Court of India had filed writ petition [Civil] No.288 of 2009 before the Delhi High Court, which was decided by the learned Single Judge vide Judgment dt on 02nd Sep, 2009, and the findings were summarized as:
"84"..[...] Re-point Nos. 1 & 2 Whether the CJI is a public Authority and whether the CPIO is a public authority of the Supreme Court, of India, is different from the office of CJI:, and if so, whether the act covers the office of CJI:
Answer.
The CJl is public Authority under the Right to Information Act and the CJl holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice: that office is "Public Authority" under the act and is covered by its provisions.
Re-Point No.3: Whether asset declaration by Supreme court judges, pursuant to the 1997 resolution are "information", under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Re-Point No. 4:
If such asset declaration are "information" does the CJI hold them in a "fiduciary" capacity, and are they therefore, exempt from disclosure under Act. Answer: The petitioners' arqument about the CJI holding assets declaration in a fiduciary capacity, (which would be breached if it is directed to be disclosed, in the manner sought by the applicant) is insubstantial. The CJI does not hold such declarations in a fiduciary capacity or relationship CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 12 of 18 The apex court at Para 89 in the said judgment upheld the judgment of Delhi Court dt 12 Jan 2010 after reviewing other judgment in respect to fiduciary relation.
(c) Lt Gen (Retd) Avadesh Prakash Vs. Indian Army File No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001300, CIC/LS/A/2010/000655 & CIC/LS/A2010/001603 decided on 25 April 2025 Para 41 produced as under :-
"A bare reading of the above passage would indicate that the normal and routine acts and transaction and duties of public servants cannot be categorized as fiduciary for the purpose of section 8 1(e), MoD appears to have written the letter to COAS for visiting the appellant with disciplinary proceedings graver than the ones recommended by the COAS. This appears to be a routine correspondence. There is nothing special about it. We have perused the said letter and find notings therein, disclosure whereof, is likely to impede the process of investigation/prosecution. In the premises, we find it difficult to uphold the contention of Shri Chandrashekhar that the Army authorities are holding the MoD letter in a fiduciary capacity. If his contention were to be accepted, then the entire correspondence exchanged between various offices/departments of the Government will become privileged thereby nullifying the beneficial effect of RTI Act. "
Para 2 (c) of RTI Application: CPIO cited 8 1(e) to avoid disclosing of information: Contest for the asked information is being made by the Appellant is same above as Para 2 b (ii) of RTI Application. Also, internal communication letter within the same public department has been shared by the PIO earlier & is placed at SI No (e) of Para 13 of Check list of submitted 2nd appeal. The claim for exemption was not made by PIO at that time. Para 2 (d) of RTI Application: CPIO cited 8 1(j) to avoid disclosing of information. The contest is being made by Appellant by submitting the under mentioned judgments:-
CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 13 of 18(a) The Hon'ble CIC in his decision CIC/SB/A/2015/000516 in the case of Shri Amit Mahalwal Vs CPIO Delhi Police defines that "The Commission further observe that denial of Information regarding duty roster and details about leave of public servant, except the reason for leave, is not a personal information and further the same relates relates to public activity/interest.
Hence, the Information sought on point nos. 01 & 02 of the RTI Application is not exempted under section 81 (j) of the RTI Act".
(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commissioner. & Ors Special Leave petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 decided on 03 Oct 2012 via vide Para 12 13 & 14 explain the scope of Personal information of Public servant, that asked copies of memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the Public servant/employee from his employer, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son, income tax return, performance of an employee/officer governed by service rules which falls under expression "personnel information".
4(c) In judgment of Madras High Court in case of M Tamilselvan Vs. The Distt Collector & 03 WP No. 33854 of 2024 others in his order at Para 12 states below:
"In the instant case the order impugned only state that the information sought is exempted under Section 8 of the Act as it relates to the personal information of the Public Servant/R-4. I am not able to bring myself to accept that. The service register of public servant would contain details regarding the date of joining the service, the transfers which the person has suffered, the increments which had been granted the earned leave which had been availed and also weather any punishment have been inflicted during the period of service. These details particularly the date of joining and the date of attaining the age of superannuation are. certainly not private information. The CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 14 of 18 assets and liabilities are again not private. To a little, extent, if punishment had been imposed owing to various circumstances, they could be also termed as being private as disclosure of the same would put to stigma on the public servant. But once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details at least so far as their service is concerned Thus, no personal information, as cited in the above judgments was requested by the RTI applicant/ appellant from the PIO (ECHS Cell Haldwani).
(d) The list/names including tenure of Public officers are prominently displayed in the tenure board (which comes under document) in the Public offices to symbolize their honor, years of dedicated service, accountability, public scrutiny & commitment towards public. If the tenure board with name of Public officers are prominently displayed by the Public Authority, the public authority (ECHS Cell) cannot claim for exemption under section 8 1(j) of RTI Act.
(e) It is also submitted that many Govt offices i.e Dept of Science & Technology, PMO office & various Public authorities has displayed the list of former secretaries & officers/directors in their official websites. Thus, the names of the Public officer cannot be withheld by claiming section 8 1(j) of RTI Act Para 2 (q) of RTI Application: CPIO cited 8 1(j) to avoid disclosing of information:
The contest is being made by the Appellant as made above at Para 2 (d) of RTI Application, & also submitting the under mentioned decision of Hon'ble CIC, CIC/AD/A/2012/000184 decided on 30 Mar 2012 in case of Shri Sandeep Srivastava Vs. CPIO WC Railways. Para 03 of said judgment states:-
"After examining the record and upon hearing the submissions. I see no harm in disclosing this information (i.e name and CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 15 of 18 designation of the officer whose signature was appearing on the HTC diary of 08 July 2010) to be Appellant"
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished in reference to point No. 2(a) and 2(e) of the RTI Application.
10. As regards point No. 2(b)(i), 2(b)(ii), 2(c), 2(d), 2(f) and 2(g) the denial of information by the PIO under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without any justification is not found convincing and appears to be legally flawed. No effort was made by the Respondent to understand and resolve the grievance of the Appellant. In addition to it, endorsement of reply of PIO by the FAA depicts that this case has been handled badly by the Respondent. The PIO is expected to have applied his mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the Appellant by invoking Section 5(4) in case the information was held by some other official. Instead of doing the needful, the PIO gave vague reply, which is not appreciated.
11.Commission is of the considered opinion that when a Public Authority receives a grievance/complaint against a private hospital empaneled by it for treatment of its own employees serving and retired and takes action (or doesn't take) against it, the Authority does not hold this information in any fiduciary relationship with the private hospital. The Complainant is entitled to know information related to his grievance/complaint, irrespective of whether the subject of grievance/complaint involves a private entity. Moreover, in this case the private is a hospital empaneled by the Respondent Authority. Furthermore, the issues involving alleged malpractice by such a hospital are of serious public importance and must be addressed with due sensitivity. The Public Authority is expected to act responsibly, ensuring that the applicant is informed about the information related to his grievance/complaint while balancing transparency with any legitimate confidentiality concerns.
CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 16 of 1812.In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to revisit the contents of the RTI Application and provide a revised point-wise updated reply with respect to point No. 2(b)(i), 2(b)(ii), 2(c), 2(d), 2(f) and 2(g) of the RTI Application, free of cost to the Appellant. Information which is exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, may be reacted as per Section 10 of the RTI Act duly recorded the remarks to this effect. This direction should be complied by the Respondent PIO within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
13. Notwithstanding the above order, since the PIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case in addition denied requested information under the RTI Act without justification, Shri Arun Shekhar, PIO, ECHS, Haldwani, is directed to show-cause in writing as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the Commission's notice of hearing by not appearing before the Commission. The written submission of the PIO shall be sent to the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.
14. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, ECHS Cell, Station Headquarters, Haldwani, PIN - 900281, C/o 56 APO CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 17 of 18 CIC/ARMHQ/A/2024/621721 Page 18 of 18 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)