Central Information Commission
K. A. Jacob vs The Marine Products Export Development ... on 31 August, 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/MPEDA/A/2022/113614
K. A. Jacob ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
The Marine Products Export
Development Authority, RTI
Cell, MPEDA House, Panampilly
Avenue, P. B. No.4272,
Kochi-682036, Kerala .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/08/2022
Date of Decision : 30/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 08/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 20/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 22/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
Qn no. (A) "Please provide copy of ordinary memo issued to the following ex- MPEDA employees in Feb 2016 : i) P L Radhakrishnan ii) D.R Unnithan iii) KK Paulose B.1.
The above three employees cited in (A) above informed me that as directed/ tutored by Sthreekumar, ex-secretary, MPEDA - G Rajendran ex MPEDA employee who has proven criminal conduct and perverse habit has prepared identical reply for the memo and replaced the actual reply furnished by those employees to the secretary. All of them stated in their initial reply that they have actually paid the fees (one reply was in Malayalam). This illegal activity taken place in the cabin of Secretary.
B.1.2 K K Paulose stated in his reply dated 11/02/2016 that he obtained treatment for his wife Shiny Paulose from Dr. Maya and expressed his readiness to remit the fees to MPEDA.
B.1.3 D.R.Unnithan stated in his reply dated 12/02/2016 that he obtained treatment for his wife Rajasree from Dr.Maya and expressed his readiness to remit the fees. B.1.4 P. L. Radhakrishnan stated in his reply dated 15/02/2016 that he obtained treatment for his wife Geethanjali from Dr.Maya and expressed his readiness to repay the fees.
Qn B.(a) Please state whether KK Paulose, D. R. Unnithan & PL Radhakrishnan have remitted any amount after expressing their written statement to MPEDA as cited in B.1.2, B. 1.3, B.1.4. If remitted give total amount remitted by each of them separately.
Qn. B. (b) Please state whether MPEDA recovered any. fees from D. R. Unnithan, K. K. Paulose, & P. L. Radhakrishnan as admitted by them. If recovered please give total amount recovered from each of them separate. Qn B. (c). If no amount refunded/recovered from them, why no action taken after admitting the same by Radhakrishnan, Paulose & Unnithan after expressing their readiness to refund.
Qn B. (d) Please provide copy of file note put up by AD Regn/AD Vigilance based on the order given on the face of the reply submitted by three employees by secretary MPEDA "put up in file"
C. 1 I cite below few pages of the medical reimbursement register of MPEDA as follows :: 57, 7, 22, 23, 28, 29, 13, 47, 78, 67, 78, 26 etc which proves that several times medical claim reimbursed with fees to the family members of Unnithan, Paulose & 2 Radhakrishnan. However in reply to memo issued to them in Feb 2016, the 3 employee's reply proves memo was given citing only one instance of fees claim. Qn. C(a) MPEDA may please state whether the Secretary/ CAO I D. D (Pers), AD Vigilance section etc taken any action to verify medical reimbursement register with the Accounts section after the admission of the three employees to find out whether they are reimbursed with consultation fees paid to Dr. Maya several times and any action taken to recover such amount by MPEDA Qn. C(b) If verified, why memo issued citing only one instance of reimbursed consultation fee? If their other claims also subjected to verification, proof for such verification and proof of action taken?
Qn. C(c) If no action taken according to Qn. C(a)/C(b) cited above by the Secretary, AD Vigilance Section, DD(P)/CAO etc was these officers failed to discharge their duties and was dancing according to the tune of Leena Nair, notorious ex Chairman, for fraud medical claim Rs. 4891 and fraud LTC amounting Rs 66410/ and warned her by Govt of India.
Qn D. MPEDA may please thoroughly verify and state now whether the depositions made by U Sunilkumar on 22/12/2015, G. Rajendran 23/12/2015, Dr Maya 10/12/202 & 22/12/2015, E.V Deepa, C.A.O on 23/12/2015 are fabricated or genuine based on which I was suspended, charge memo issued & dismissed from MPEDA?
Qn. D1.
Also please certify whether the documents attached with charge memo from serial number as SI.No.1-P-01 to SI No. 315-Ref P33 (first copy attached) are genuine or there are documents fabricated and annexed?
Qn. E. If thoroughly verified as D and D1 cited above and found as genuine, please certify the same with the name and designation of MPEDA employee/officer certifying it as genuine."
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 08.12.2021 stating as follows:-
Qn. (A):- Copy Annexed.
Qn. B. (a), (b), (c), C. 1., C (a), C(c), Qn . (D), D1 & Qn. E:- Question is not specific Qn. B(d):- Copy annexed.3
Qn. C(b):- Question not comes under the ambit of RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.12.2021. FAA's order dated 22.12.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO against para Nos. Qn. (A), Qn. B.(a),
(b), (c), C. 1., C (a), C(c), Qn. (D), D1, Qn. E and Qn. C(b). With regard to question B(d), FAA stated as under:-
Qn. B(d):-"Admitted to provide the legible copy"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of legible copies of relevant information from the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Sreejith P. T., Asst. Director & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant at the outset in a generalized manner stated that the information sought by him revolves around the core issue of his service matter; however, in response to all his RTI Applications including the instant one the CPIO is in the habit of denying the information on the plea of it being third party.
The CPIO submitted that main contention of the Appellant in the instant matter is non-receipt of legible copies of relevant information. In this regard, he explained that although copies of all readily available records have already been furnished to the Appellant; however, due to the fact the records being very old, scanned documents are not legible/ readable. Lastly, at the behest of the Commission he agreed to share a soft copy of readily available records through e mail in response to instant RTI Application with the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application that the information sought by the Appellant majorly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also contains the elements of personal information including personal details of concerned officers which is hit by Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include 4 deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Furthermore, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 while explaining 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 hospitals and doctors 5 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..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply coupled with relevant information provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant in terms of RTI Act.
Now, considering the Appellant's contentions in this Appeal and also in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to share soft copies of relevant records through email which will suffices the information sought by the Appellant, without divulging the personal details of third parties which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO keeping in view the applicability of Section 10 (1) of RTI Act. For the sake of clarity Section 10 (1) of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference -
" 10. Severability--
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information...."
The above said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through email within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 6 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7