Central Information Commission
Hari Ram Saini vs Delhi Development Authority on 17 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/DDATY/A/2017/114646
CIC/DDATY/A/2017/114662
Date of Hearing : 13.07.2018
Date of Decision : 13.07.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. HARI RAM SAINI
Respondent : PIO/Dy. Director-(Vigilance-III),
Delhi Development Authority,
Vigilance Department
Through:- Sh. Jagdish Parshad and
Sh. Balraj
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.12.2016 & 08.12.2016
PIO replied on : 10.01.2017 1& 10.01.2017
First Appeal filed on : 12.01.2017 & 12.01.2017
First Appellate Order on : - - - -
2nd Appeal/complaint received : 04.03.2017
on
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/DDATY/A/2017/114646 CIC/DDATY/A/2017/114662 Vide RTI applications dated 08.12.2016, the appellant sought information as under:-
1. Provide the copies of noting portions of file No. F.4(30)83/Vig./Vol-I and Vol-II in which his case and case of Sh. S.P. Bhandari, Executive Engineer was dealt with.
2. Provide copies of noting portions of File No. F.40(30)Vig/Appeal Vol-2 in which Order No. 208/2014/Vig/DC 9538 dated 19.11.2015 was issued by Vice Chairman.
3. Provide the copies of representations and copies of penalty orders passed in the case of Sh. S.P. Bhandari, Executive Engineer in the same case.
4. Provide copies of notings of file in which case of Sh. S.P. Bhandari then EE was dealt with.
Shri Paras Nath, Dy. Director (Vig.)-III/PIO vide letter dated 10.01.2017 informed the appellant that the information required copies of the documents as per point No. 1 & 2 can be provide subject to payment of copying charges @ Rs. 2/- per page, which comes to Rs. 122/- for 61 pages.
Further it is also informed that the information as per point Nos. 3 & 4 of appellant's RTI application cannot be provided under the provision of Sec- 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act being third party information.
Dissatisfied information received from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from FAA, the appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present. Appellant states that while information against queries number 1 and 2 have been furnished to him, information against queries 3 and 4 have been denied. Appellant contests the denial of information against queries 3 and 4 claiming that gross injustice has been perpetrated by Respondent by discriminating and denying equal protection of law. Thus as per the appellant, the Respondent has violated the principles of natural justice by awarding different punishments to different accused persons. For the similar charges different punishments have been awarded to different accused persons.
Respondent states that Mr. Saini was a Junior Engineer against whom the major penalty proceedings had been initiated when he was working in the Housing Division No. XIV during the year 1981-83, on account of his failure to exercise proper supervision and control and for allowing execution of grossly sub-standard work. The I.O. had proved the charges against the appellant vide report dated 11.04.1990 and the appellant had been removed from service vide order dated 31.03.1994.
On the other hand, Mr. S P Bhandari, about whom the appellant had enquired, the then Executive Engineer had also been found guilty of the same wrongful act, but the I.O. could only partly prove the charges. Mr. Bhandari was thus compulsorily retired from services of DDA.
Furthermore, the Respondent cited the decisions passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of UPSC vs. R K Jain whereby the issue of disclosure of information about vigilance/disciplinary proceedings have been decided thus:
"...that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.."
Decision:
After hearing the parties at length and examination of records of the case, the Commission finds that the issue at hand has already been squarely dealt with and decided by well settled decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of 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]. The Apex Court had made the following observations while denying copies of memos, show-cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer, in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande:
"......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 organization 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 the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of 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.
The appellant in the instant cases has emphasised on the information against queries number 3 and 4, seeking a negative parity, to be treated alike with his fellow accused. However, he has not established any aspect of larger public interest which may be served by such disclosure of information. The appellant has been removed from service in 1994 and the Sh. Bhandari, the third party, has also been compulsorily retired. Thus disclosure of the information is not likely to serve any purpose, after lapse of so much time nor has the appellant made out a case in this regard. Thus, in view of the well settled law, as discussed above, the Commission does not wish to interfere with the PIO's stance of denial of information against queries number 3 and 4.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer