Central Information Commission
Nutan Thakur vs Central Vigilance Commission on 10 May, 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/CVCOM/A/2020/101577
Nutan Thakur ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan, GPO
Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110023. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/05/2022
Date of Decision : 06/05/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/11/2019
CPIO replied on : 26/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 10/12/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20/12/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/01/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.11.2019 seeking the following information:
"Sri Alok Verma, a 1979 batch AGMUT Cadre IPS officer was abruptly sent on leave on 24/10/2018 and was reinstated on around 09/01/2019 and removed within 48 days. Immediately after getting reinstated, many transfers at different ranks were made in CBI after his assuming charge. In view of the above facts, 1 kindly provide the information related with the above action/orders, in larger public interest:-
1. Kindly provide a copy of the official orders made in this regards.
2. Kindly provide a copy of the base material/facts with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) regarding facts on the basis of which such drastic actions were taken by CBI.
3. Kindly provide details of the background as on CVC record regarding facts on the basis of which such drastic actions were taken by CBI.
4. Kindly provide a copy of the entire file (including notesheet and correspondence) of CVC as regards the above action/transfer orders, made immediately after taking charge by Sri Verma as CBI Director."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 26.11.2019 stating as follows:-
"This CPIO is not the custodian of information sought. However, it is observed that you are continuously, repetitively seeking information on the same matter through several RTI applications. The Central Information Commission in case No. CIC AD A2073 001326-5A dated 25.06.2014 in case of Shri Ramesh Chand Jain Vs Delhi Transport Corporation has observed that The Commission noticed that several applicants seek some information from one wing of the public authority and based on the responses file a bunch of RTI questions from the same or other wings of same public authority or from other public authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the PIOs go on answering, more and more questions are generated out of the same and in the same proportion the number of repeated first appeals and second appeals will be growing. No further information can therefore, be provided as you are seeking information in respect of the same case repetitively."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2019. FAA's order dated 20.12.2019 held as under:-
"...............I find that on receipt of the online RTI application which was transferred back by CBI, the CPIO concerned had intimated the appellant that this CPIO is not the custodian of information sought. As no information, as sought for, is available with the CPIO concerned, there is no scope to intervene in the matter. However, keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO concerned, that is, Shri Ajay Kanoujia, Director is advised to ensure that all necessary information, as available, shall be provided to the RTI Applicant/Appellant at the first instance."2
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Nitin Kumar, Director (Admn) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and stated that he has nothing further to add in this regard.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of intervention in the matter as the information sought for by the Appellant is rather unspecific in nature and relates to the service matter of a third party and for the said reason, the merits of the CPIO's reply is not being called into question. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is 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:
"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 3 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..."
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4