Central Information Commission
P Kannan vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 7 April, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/121569-UM
Mr. P Kannan,
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Directorate Of Social Welfare,
A & N Islands Port Blair A & N Island - 744101
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.04.2021
Date of Decision : 05.04.2021
Date of RTI application 31.12.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 04.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 28.03.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 09.05.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the recruitment of Miss Rita Devi as a Superintendent (Orphan Home) in the Department:
Page 1 of 51. Certified copies of the initial appointment order copy given to Miss Rita Devi, presently holding the post of Superintendent (O.H) in this department along with her all copies of education qualification at the time of getting appointment.
2. Certified copies of the complete service details /records of Miss Rita Devi in her entire service period in this department.
3. Certified copies of the details of all promotions given to Miss Rita Devi in this department including RR of the said all posts, along with all promotion /confirmation orders including entire file notings, all DPC meetings proceedings copy and copy of the promotion order given including the approval of the same by the competent authority along with entire file notings and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 28.03.2019 directed the PIO/AD (Admn) to provide all earlier pending requisite information/documents in complete form within a week i.e, up to 29.03.2019 of receipt of this order.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. P Kannan, through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Aditya Kumar Jha, Director of Social Welfare along with Mr. A. Jayant, AD and PIO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that complete and satisfactory information was not provided to him in compliance with the directions of the FAA. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that the partial information was provided to the Appellant after the directions of the FAA. However, the Respondent agreed to re-examine the RTI application of the Appellant and to furnish the generic information barring the personal information of Miss Rita Devi, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 5
As regards the information sought regarding the copy of initial appointment order of Miss Rita Devi; her education qualification; details of service records; details of promotions given to her; all DPCs; copy of complaints received against her along with inquiry records, orders passed, file noting, charge sheet, etc., the Commission observed that the same contained the Third Party information which is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc Page 3 of 5
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature;
secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
Furthermore, in a recent judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"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 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."Page 4 of 5
In the present situation, a reference can also be made to the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 wherein it was held as under :
"The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited above, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Commission however cautions the CPIO to be extremely careful in replying to the RTI applications within the stipulated time limit as per Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 05.04.2021 Page 5 of 5