Central Information Commission
Mr Anil Jauhari vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 31 March, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000767/SS
Dated:31.3.2014
Name of the Appellant: Shri Anil Jauhari
Name of the Public Authority: Nuclear Power Corporation, Mumbai
Date of Hearing: 26.3.2014
ORDER
1. The appellant is present for the hearing. The respondent was present and heard via video conference. The respondent was represented by Shri SK Srivastava (CPIO), Shri. Y.N Vasudevan (Manager (HR), Shri Ashok Bhavle (Vig.), Shri P.K Sharma (Manager, HR), Shri Yen Vasudevan (Manager, HR), Shri Salim (Sr. Manager, HR) and Smt. Deliala Perera (Dy. Manager).
2. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2012 seeking information on (9) points. The appellant sought information in relation to complaints against Shri V.K Saxena, Sr. Manager (OL), NPCIL in reference to various letters filed by the appellant. The appellant has mainly sought certified copies of various complaints against various officers of NPCIL and also the inspection of the entire proceedings related to the fact finding committee considered by CMD etc. The CPIO vide reply dated 30.1.2013 denied the information under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 except for point (h) wherein the CPIO stated that the complete proceeding/fact finding committee report was inspected by the appellant and that copy of the same was also made available on 10.2.2012.
The appellant field first appeal dated 20.2.2013 which was disposed off vide order of the first appellate authority dated 5.3.2013 wherein the decision of the CPIO was upheld.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission and Ors vide judgement dated 03.10.2012 has held as under:
"12. The Petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third Respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third Respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third Respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. 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."
4. The Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO and upholds the applicability of section 8 (1) (j) in the present appeal. As stated, the inspection of the fact finding committee has already been provided to the appellant. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the order of the CPIO and first appellate authority.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sushma Singh Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(DC Singh) Deputy Registrar Name & Address of Parties:
1. Appellant:
Mr Anil Jauhari, 604, Riddhi Siddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Next to Gaikwadnagar Bus Depot, Malad (West), Mumbai - 400095
2. CPIO & Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. , Vikram Sarabhbai Bhawan, Central Avenue Road, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094
3. The Outstanding Scientist, Executive Director (R&R) & FAA, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan, Central Avenue Road, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai - 400094