Central Information Commission
Alok Kumar Verma vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 14 June, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MHOME/A/2020/681346
Alok Kumar Verma ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
US (Police-I Division),
M/o Home Affairs, North
Block, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/04/2022
Date of Decision : 08/06/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 21/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 12/05/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 21/07/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/08/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2020 seeking the following information:
(i) Please provide list of all Inquiry Officers and Inquiry Authority empaneled with Ministry of Home Affairs from 2016 onwards to till date.
(ii) Please provide the certified copy of application including enclosures submitted by Shri P K Basu (retired IAS) for his role/appointment as 1 Inquiry Officer/Inquiry Authority with Ministry of Home Affairs. Date of submission of application by Shri P K Basu should also be provided.
(iii) Certified copies of the relevant rules, guidelines, orders, circulars, memorandum or any other authority etc issued by concerned department/ministry of Government of India specifying the conditions for appointment of a person as Inquiry Officer/Inquiry Authority with MHA.
(iv) Please provide the condition of appointment of Mr P K Basu as an Inquiry Authority against me/applicant in enquiries, arising from charge sheet dated 31.01.2019 and 18.04.2019.
(v) Please provide details of tenure, emoluments and other benefits extended to Shri P K Basu for the purpose of each of the aforesaid inquiries against me.
The CPIO furnished point-wise reply to the appellant on 21.04.2020 stating as follows:-
"Please refer to your online application No. MHOME/R/E/20/01781 dated 20.03.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. With regard to information sought by you vide points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the application, it is stated that two separate disciplinary proceedings initiated by this Ministry against you under Rule 8 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 are under process. It is also noted that furnishing the information under these points may impede the process of inquiry (6isciplinary proceeding) initiated against you by this Ministry and, therefore, the information cannot be given under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is also noted that no public interest would be served if the information sought under points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the application is provided to you and as such, the information sought under these points is also exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. As regards information sought by you vide point (iii) of the application, it is informed that the Government is empowered under Rule 8(2) of the AIS (NA) Rules, 1969 to appoint an Inquiring Authority for holding an inquiry into the charges framed against the All India Services officer (including IPS officers). It is further informed that the IPS officers are governed by the Rules/Regulations/Guidelines framed by the DoPT for AIS officers. These Rules/Regulations/Guidelines are available on the official website of DoPT i.e. www.persmin.gov.in."
2Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2020. FAA's order dated 21.07.2020 held as under:-
"Reply of the appeal has already been issued to the applicant vide this Ministry's order No 45020/10/2020‐IP.II dated 11th June, 2020."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Shivanshu Bhardwaj along with Karan Gautam through intra-video conference.
Respondent: A K Saran, Director (Police) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant at the outset reiterated the contents of the RTI Application as well as the CPIO's reply and argued in the manner as spelt out in the grounds of the Second Appeal, contents of which is reproduced hereunder:
"4. The CPIO's decision dated 21.04.2020 is not only erroneous but also perverse as it defeats the purpose of the RTI Act and fails to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the concerned public authority under the Rule of Law. The CPIO's decision has done grave injustice to the Appellant by not providing important information for the case (which he is solely in control and possession) for reasons best known to him. The perverse and bald decision just quoted the exemption Section 8(1)(h)&(j) of RTI Act, without applying his mind and without providing any reasons. The CPIO decision dated 21.04.2020 is totally vague, arbitrary and contrary to the well settled principles and cases of the High Court and Supreme Court of India as follows (all are available on the CIC website):
a) Judgement of Hon'be Justice Ravindra Bhat in Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner (WP 3114/2007‐ Delhi High Court reported in 146(2008) DLT 385).
b) Judgment of Hon'ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna in Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension vs CIC, P.D. Khandelwal & others (decided on 30.11.2009 in WP (Civil) Nos 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007,7930/2009 and 3607 of 2007).3
c) Thalappalam Service Co‐operative Bank vs State of Kerala 2013 (16) SCC 82 (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9017 OF 2013) Even the Central Information Commission has decided cases based on the above well‐settled cases such as under:
a) Rajender Singh vs CBI (CIC Appeal No. CIC/ WB/A/2007/01300 dated 19.10.2007)
b) S.K. Bansal vs CBI (CIC Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01257 dated 18.07.2008)
c) Shri Shram Vir Singh vs CBI (CIC Appeal No CIC/WB/A/2007/01121 dated 18.11.2007)
d) Suman Tyagi Vs. CBI (CIC Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00622 dated 31.03.2008)
e) Yoginder Kumar Vs. CBI (CIC Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/000049 dated 12.02.2009) Further Rule 8(h) relates to investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Moreover, the CPIO himself refers to the inquiries initiated against the Appellant as departmental inquiries, and thus they do not fall under the gambit of either investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Hon'ble Justice Ravindra Bhat in the Bhagat Singh vs CIC (WP 3114/2007‐ Delhi High Court reported in 146(2008) DLT 385) states as under:
xxx xxx Thus, the CPIO and First Appellate Authority in fairness ought to have provided the reason as to how the information if provided to the Appellant, would have been an impediment to the prosecution of any offenders, apprehension of any offenders, or further investigation of any criminal case, which the CPIO & First Appellate Authority felt that the documents sought for, if provided to the present Appellant, would impede.
Further, the CPIO's erroneous decision dated 21.04.2020 relies on incomplete portions of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 as it does not read the section completely. It forgot to read the proviso which states that "provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." This seems to be a major mistake by the CPIO.4
It may be noted that in several decisions of the CIC even confidential documents have been allowed.
5. The required information is crucial for the Appellant's case and also for his life, liberty and well‐being as his financial dues have not been paid to him for more than 18 months now. Further, as can be seen the information sought is very basic and should already be there in public domain. The First Appellate Authority ought to have applied his mind in light of the judgments quoted by the Appellant in the First Appeal. The principles under which the information has been sought have been settled under law by various Supreme Court and High Court judgments, which the First Appellate Authority and CPIO know.
6. The First Appellate Authority vaguely has not provided point‐wise information and has given no plausible reason for rejection of the information.
The information called for is about the appointment of a person in the Central Government. It does not impede any process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Moreover, the CPIO himself refers to the inquiries initiated against the Appellant as departmental inquiries, and thus they do not fall under the gambit of either investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It has also been shown that both Rules 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) are not applicable and valid here. The Appellant has requested copies of the rules and orders specifying conditions for appointment of a person as Inquiry Authority but CPIO has evaded the reply for reasons best known to him. The required information is crucial for the Appellant's case to show how predecided and illegal inquiries are being proceeded against the undersigned. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority cannot decide my defence material in the inquiry and must under the RTI Act be just and fair to provide information on the concerned authority."
In furtherance of these arguments, the Advocate of the Appellant and the CPIO briefed the bench at length regarding the factual context of the information sought for in the RTI Application which included inter alia an extended discussion on the merits of the appointment of P K Basu as an Inquiry Officer.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is squarely exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for 5 service-related information of various third parties and in particular that of P K Basu. In this regard, the Commission relies upon various connected judgments of the Apex Court stipulating the import of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as well as exemplifying upon the meaning of "personal information" viz. in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"...5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc. XXX
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re‐examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:‐ '12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show‐cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if 6 the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.'
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1..." Emphasis Supplied Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 while explaining the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act referred to the above discussed judgments and observed as under:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list ofhospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of 7 privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, the Commission finds the applicability of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act extraneous and for this reason, the arguments of the parties with respect to the applicability or non-applicability of the said exemption are not being adjudged in the instant matter.
Similarly, since no material on record suggests any larger public interest in the disclosure of the averred information related to the service matters of third parties, there is no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8