Central Information Commission
Kundan Kumar vs Northeast Frontier Railway (Guwahati) on 18 January, 2021
CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978
In the matter of:
Kundan Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/ Divisional Railway Manager
(Finance) Northeast Frontier
Railway Alipurduar Division,
Distt. Alipurduar, West Bengal
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.09.2018 FA : 31.10.2018 SA : 07.01.2019
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 13.01.2021
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Kundan Kumar participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Katihar.
Respondent: Shri Ajay Bastiya, APIO and Asst. Personnel Officer participated in
the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Cooch Behar.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 12.09.2018 seeking information on the following six points:
"रतन कु मार िपता िवनय पो ार सा० नया टोला (यादव टोला) क टहार (िबहार) जो अलीपुर ारा एम. एफ. एल. म ASM के पद पर कायरत है के स ब ध म िन सूचना दया जाए :-
1) रतन कु मार (ASM) पद पर कब योगदान दया गया है? योगदान प का अिभ मािणत छाया ित उपल ध कराया जाए।
2) रतन कु मार (ASM) का च र माण प का अिभ मािणत छाया ित उपल ध कराया जाए।
3) रतन कु मार का अपरािधक च र के संबंध िवभाग को जानकारी है। उसक सूचना दी जाए।
4) रतन कु मार (ASM) का कॉल लेटर का अिभ मािणत छाया ित उपल ध कराया जाए।
5) रतन कु मार (ASM) वतमान पद पर कब से कायकत है, का सूचना दया जाए।
6) रतन कु मार (ASM) का भरपाई पंजी का अिभ मािणत छाया ित उपल ध कराया जाए|"
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2018, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.Page 2 of 7
CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978 Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he has not received any information from the Respondent till date. At the instance of the Commission, he failed to establish the larger public interest in the instant case; instead, he averred that he has a right to seek the information under the RTI Act. Moreso, he questioned the Bench as to whether has it been expressly mentioned that the information pertaining to personal information of a third party should not be divulged.
The Respondent submitted that on 01.10.2018 relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application was provided to the Appellant. He read out the contents of the aforesaid letter dated 01.10.2018 which states that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to a third party and the same cannot be divulged without taking the consent of the concerned third party.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission is aghast with the fact that the Appellant being an Advocate is unaware of the fact that the information sought pertains to personal information of a third party which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission takes very strong exception of the Appellant's impudent way of making submissions before the Bench. In fact, the Commission is rather perplexed and appalled to note that the Appellant, being an Advocate has succumbed to such a tone and tenor during the hearing, which is uncalled for and is objectionable.
Nonetheless, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is in the personal interest of the Appellant Page 3 of 7 CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978 and this Bench does not entertain abuse of process of Law. In addition, the Commission observes that though the term "third party information" has nowhere been defined in the RTI Act. The Commission also observes that the CPIO has not invoked any of the exemption clauses as specified under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act to deny the information sought in the RTI Application. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to cite observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, wherein the aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is 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.
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, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-Page 4 of 7
CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978 '12. 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 organisation 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 or 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.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.'
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..." [Emphasis Supplied] Further, Commission also relies upon another judgment of 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:Page 5 of 7
CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978 "...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 confidential access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." [Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the aforementioned cases has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 18.01.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 6 of 7 CIC/NFRLG/A/2019/100978 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority, Northeast Frontier Railway Alipurduar Division, Distt. Alipurduar, West Bengal
2. The Central Public Information Officer / Divisional Railway Manager (Finance) Northeast Frontier Railway, Alipurduar Division, Distt. Alipurduar, West Bengal.
3. Shri Kundan Kumar Page 7 of 7