Central Information Commission
S Karthik vs Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 6 December, 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/CCECN/A/2022/107498
S Karthik ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asstt. Commissioner O/o
Principal Chief Commissioner
of GST and Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry Zone, RTI Cell,
26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034,
Tamilnadu. ....!ितवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/12/2022
Date of Decision : 05/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 10/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 05/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2021 seeking the following information regarding sudden death of your officers and appointment order given for their children under the ground of Compassionate as follows:-1
1. From the year 2004 to 2021 how many officer's so far died suddenly during their employment in your Chennai South Commissionerate office - a list of such death of your officers may be furnished under RTI Act 2005.
2. To furnish the detail of 5% quto appointment so far granted by your prescribed committee to your deceased officers children from the year 2004 to 2021- a list of such appointment order on the ground of compassionate may be furnished to me under RTI Act 2005."
The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 17.11.2021 to the CPIO, O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Zone RTI Cell, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Subsequently, O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Zone RTI Cell, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai replied to the appellant on 22.11.2021 as under:-
"....the desired information in respect of Point No 1 is not available with this office. The same may be available with the CPIO Chennai South coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai. Hence your application is being forwarded to the CPIO of Chennai South Commissionerate coming under the jurisdiction of CCA, Chennai, under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005, for furnishing the information directly to you."
Thereafter, the CPIO, O/o Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Zone RTI Cell, 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.12.2021 against point No. 2 of the RTI application, which is as under:-
Year Total no. of appointments
made
2004 8
2005 NIL
2006 NIL
2007 NIL
2008 5
2009 6
2010 3
2011 4
2012 4
2013 NIL
2
2014 7
2015 NIL
2016 NIL
2017 29
2018 NIL
2019 14
2020 NIL
2021 NIL
Total 80
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2021. FAA's order dated 05.01.2022 held as under:-
"..........I direct CPIO to provide the names of beneficiaries/persons who have been appointed on compassionate grounds from the year 2004 to 2021, the order number and date vide which such appointments were made, the names of deceased employees and their designation to the Appellant."
In compliance with the FAA's order, CPIO replied to the appellant dated NIL as under:-
"........the details of appointments made under Compassionate grounds from the year 2004 to 2021 are annexed. Since no order number was allotted while issuing Officer of Appointments, the date of issue of Offer of Appointment letter is provided."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"Date of death of every one of the deceased employee in the list furnished by the CPIO under letter in File No. GCCO/RTI/EPP/20/2022- CCAESTT-O/o. Pr.CC- CGST-ZONE-CHENNAI, dated 21-2- 2022, may be furnished to the Appellant."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by his Advocate through video conference. Respondent: Rajni Menon, Assistant Commissioner & CPIO present through video conference.3
The Advocate of the Appellant reiterated the grounds of the Second Appeal as above and insisted that relief ought to be ordered in the matter.
The CPIO submitted that at the original instance the Appellant was provided with the information as above and later in First Appeal, even as the Appellant sought for additional information, the FAA directed disclosure and that was also duly complied with. She further argued that now in Second Appeal, the Appellant is asking for a new set of information all over again which is not permissible.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the CPIO & FAA have gone beyond their mandate to part with the personal information of third parties that stand exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without even following the due procedure of law laid down in Section 11 of the RTI Act which calls for seeking the consent of the third parties before disclosing their personal information. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further 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:
4"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..."
Having observed as above, no further disclosures are warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
सरोजपुनहािन) Saroj Punhani (सरोजपु हािन सूचनाआयु&) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ!मा(णत स)या*पत !ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5