Central Information Commission
Sanjeeb Kumar Karna vs Staff Selection Commission on 3 June, 2021
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/SSCOM/A/2019/651354
Sanjeeb Kumar Karna ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
RTI Cell, Block No. 12, Lodhi
Road, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Colony, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/06/2021
Date of Decision : 02/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SarojPunhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 02/09/2019
First appeal filed on : 02/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 16/09/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/09/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.08.2019 seeking information as under:
"..........DOPT vide letter dated 26 Jul 2016 stating that it has been decided not to grant one time relaxation to those candidates who had already joined civil employment before 14 Aug 2014 and got selected in CGLE 2013 getting the benefit of reservation available for ex-servicemen, SSCNR has sought details of all the ex-servicemen candidates who had already joined civil employment before 14 Aug 2014 and got selected in CGLE 2013 getting the benefit of reservation available for ex-servicemen from various user departments. In this regard, provide the following information:-
1. Provide copies of all letters received from CBDT, CBEC, CAG, CGA and CGDA.
2. Provide the number of EXM candidates nominated from SSC CGLE 2013 in your region who had already joined civil employment before 14 Aug 2014 and got selected in CGLE 2013 getting the benefit of reservation available for ex-servicemen."
The CPIO/ US-NR(ND-I) furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 02.09.2019 stated as follows:-
"Reply :- 1. The copy of the desired documents cannot be provided as the same has not been created at this end.
2. As per information provided by the DPIO, a total of 26 Exe Serviceman candidates of CGLE 2013 of Northern Region, who were in civil employment were got finally selected."
Being dissatisfied with the reply to point no.1 of the RTI Application, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2019. FAA's order dated 16.09.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Chakrapani, Under Secretary, SSC (Northern Region) present through audio conference.
As the instant case was being heard along with another Appeal of the Appellant on the same subject matter vide File No : CIC/SSCOM/A/2019/650204 against the same CPIO, the arguments of the Appellant in that case was reiterated in the instant case with respect to point no.1 of the instant RTI Application. The same is reproduced hereunder:
"The Appellant stated that he is no longer interested in pursuing the case for provision of the information as he has received the same from some other source but wants to press for action against the CPIO for causing him loss and detriment by withholding the information on unreasonable grounds. Upon a query from the Commission regarding the detriment suffered, the Appellant stated on the lines of his grievance mentioned in the Appeal, extract of which is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
'All departments/offices including various zones of CBDT have appointed almost all the similarly placed ex-servicemen candidates of SSC CGLE 2013 except 04 who have availed their quota by joining civil side before 14 Aug 2014. It is a case of viola< on of the Article 16 of Constitution of India which gives the Right of Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The candidates, information related to whom is sought through RTI application, are those candidates who had availed their ex-servicemen quota joining the civil side before 14 Aug 2014 and still selected by SSCNR, nominated and appointed by the respective user departments including PCCITs/CCITs of CBDT. The RTI applicant is also similarly placed candidate but he had been denied appointment by the O/o HRD CBDT. The case filed by the RTI applicant is sub-judice in the PRINCIPAL BENCH of the CAT, New Delhi. In support of the contention of the applicant, the information sought through the RTI is required for further submission to honble CAT. I am one of the four ex-servicemen candidates denied appointment by HRD, CBDT...' In furtherance of the same arguments, the Appellant insisted for action to be initiated against the CPIO in the instant case also for having provided a misleading reply.3
The CPIO tendered his unconditional regret for any inadvertent detriment caused to the Appellant and insisted that he is ready to facilitate the available information now upon Commission's direction.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO grossly erred in denying the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application on the premise that 'desired documents cannot be provided as the same has not been created at this end'. The RTI Act does not provide for any such exemption from disclosure of the information in as much as the record holder is supposed to either provide the information or deny the information strictly as per the exemption clauses of Section 8 and/or 9 and in cases where information is not available, same should be categorically indicated. Neither of these actions were taken by the CPIO in the instant case, rather an evasive and mindless reply was provided to the averred point.
However, the conduct of the CPIO does not warrant any penal or disciplinary action in the absence of any material on record to suggest that the denial of information was deliberate or with a malafide intention. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."4
Similarly, an observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 is also relevant to point out here which reads as under:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Now, the Commission also notes that the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application seeks documents related to the appointment of certain third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of 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 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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 following was thus held:
"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 of 5 hospitals 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 privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Having observed as above, it is pertinent to note that no larger public interest is apparent in the disclosure of the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application as the subject matter concerns Appellant's service matter and is an administrative grievance for which he has quite appropriately approached the CAT.
Adverting to a conjoint reading of the foregoing observations, the CPIO is hereby cautioned for future to ensure that information sought for under the RTI Act is not denied on arbitrary grounds, rather it should be strictly as per the exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
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 / 6