Central Information Commission
Sushil Joshi vs West Central Railway on 18 November, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/WECRL/A/2023/639992
Sushil Joshi .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Sr. DPO Bhopal,
O/o Divisional Railway Manager, West Central
Railway DRM Road, Bengali
Colony, N-2, Habib Ganj, Bhopal - 462024 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2024
Date of Decision : 14.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 26.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 27.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16.08.2023
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 05.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"Kindly arrange to provide me the attested copy of the following information under The Right to Information Act, 2005 in public interest and which also pertains to the applicant personally:
1: As per Attached letter (Page-02) WCR/P-BPL/308/DAR/su.jo., Dated: 14.02.2022. On the complaint of the applicant against the employee Mr. Rohit Tripathi, General Assistant, Bhopal Division, please provide information along with complete correspondence, noting of the proceedings till date related to the departmental proceedings.
2: Provide attested copy of noting, including complete correspondence of Bhopal Division/WCR e File no. WCR-BPLOPERS(EOFF)/1632/2022-0/0 Sr. DPO/BPL/WCR (Computer No. 174457) from date 23/12/2022 to 03/04/2023"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.06.2023 stating as under:
"आपके द्वारा चाही गयी जानकारी थर्ड पार्टी से संबन्धित है अतः जन सुचना अधिकार अधिननयम 2005 की िारा 8(1) से मुक्त नहीं है , इसलिए जन सुचना अधिकार अधिननयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) j के तहत दे य नहीं है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.08.2023, held as under:
"आपके द्वारा चाही गयी जानकारी थर्ड पार्टी से संबंधित है , अतः जन सूचना अधिकारी अधिननयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) j से मुक्त नहीं है , इसलिए जन सूचना अधिकार अधिननयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) j के तहत दे य नहीं की जा सकती है ।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds:
"It is pertinent to mention here this matter was a dispute between two individuals where one of them is applicant itself. Administration has taken action (DAR) against applicant only and no action has been taken Page 2 of 6 against on the other person, despite administration had informed earlier that the departmental proceeding are going on applicant complaint. Here this gives a strong feeling by hiding the information clearly administration doing injustice by punishing only applicant and protecting the other person. I would also like to bring it your consideration, I am seeking information on the status on my complaint raised by me which is my right provided by RTI Act.
In the interest of Natural Justice Applicant is humbly requesting for your kind intervention for fulfilling the objective of RTI Act by the Republic of India for its citizens."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Mr. Rajnish Kumar Shukla, APO/APIO present through video- conference.
A written submission dated 29.10.2024 filed by Mr. Vijay Singh, Sr. DPO/ PIO is taken on record, contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"आपके द्वारा चाही गयी जानकारी थर्ड पार्टी से संबंधित है , अतः जन सूचना अधिकारी अधिननयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) j से मुक्त नहीं है , इसलिए जन सूचना अधिकार अधिननयम 2005 की िारा 8 (1) j के तहत दे य नहीं की जा सकती है ।"
The appellant contended that the same information sought by Mr. Rohit Tripathi against him was provided to third-party, however, it was malafidely denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He further reiterated the contents of his second appeal and restricted his claim by urging the Commission that information at point No. 1 of RTI application should be furnished to him.
Respondent apprised the Commission that notings at point No. 2 has already been provided to the appellant, while against Point No. 1 the appellant has sought notings, correspondences on his complaint which was filed against another employee, Mr. Rohit Tripathi. Since a D& AR case was pending against the appellant and that employee, and it also contains the details of third party, therefore, information on point No. 1 of RTI application has been denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Challenging the order of Page 3 of 6 disciplinary authority, the appellant has already approached the Hon'ble CAT, Jabalpur by filing appeal and then a review petition, both of which were dismissed by the Court. At the behest of the Commission, the respondent has agreed to provide the broad outcome of complaint against Point No. 1 of the RTI application to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the appellant during the hearing restricted his prayer to point No. 1 of the RTI Act. In this regard, the respondent has agreed to intimate the broad outcome of the complaint to the appellant.
The Commission is of the view that the appellant being the complainant is entitled to know the broad outcome of the action taken on his complaint as sought for at point No. 1 of the RTI application.
In this regard, attention of the parties is invited towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate Page 4 of 6 authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under:
"Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest. 11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."
In view of the above, the Respondent is directed to provide a revised updated reply at point No. 1 of RTI application by informing the broad outcome of the complaint to the Appellant within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order. The remaining information, as sought by the appellant on the said point, being exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be provided.
Page 5 of 6The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
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, ADRM-A AND S, O/o Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway DRM Road, Bengali Colony, N-2, Habib Ganj, Bhopal - 462024 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)