Central Information Commission
Mrarun Kumar P N vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 29 April, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110 066
TEL: 01126105682
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/003561/SB
Dated 02.05.2016
Appellant : Shri Arun Kumar P.N.,
Punnoth House, Pancode,
Ernakulam Disttt.
Kerala682 310.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Disaster ManagementI Section,
CWing, 3rd Floor,
NDCCII Bhawan, Jai Singh Road
New Delhi.
Central Public Information Officer
Directorate National Disaster Response
Force,
Level 7, East BlockVII,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi110 066.
Date of Hearing : 29.04.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.05.2014
CPIO's reply : 14.07.2014/05.08.2014
First appeal filed on : 14.07.2014/21.07.2014
1
F.A.A's order : 13.08.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 10.11.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Arun Kumar P.N. filed an online application dated 26.05.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on twelve points relating to Shri M.K. Verma, Commandant, 04 Bn. National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), Suraksha Campus, Arakkonam including (i) job profile/job responsibilities of Shri M.K. Verma, in the organization during his tenure in NDRF, (ii) whether Mr Verma has faced any departmental disciplinary enquiry proceedings so far in his tenure in NDRF, furnish details, if any and (iii) whether any anonymous or pseudonymous complaint has been lodged against Shri Verma or against his office before NDRF or NDMA by anyone during his tenure in NDRF - furnish details and action taken, if any, separately including copies of enquiry report and findings.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 10.11.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the information sought has been wrongly denied by the CPIO, NDRF to whom the RTI application was transferred by the M.H.A. making Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the ground for denial and that the First Appellate Authority, NDRF too disposed of his first appeal on the same ground. The appellant requested the Commission to set aside the orders of the CPIO and the FAA and direct the respondent CPIO to furnish all information requested in his RTI application, impose penalty on the CPIO, and to grant compensation to him. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Arun Kumar P.N and the respondent Shri Gopi Chandra Chhawaniya, CPIO and Director, MHA were present in person. 2
4. The appellant submitted that the information as sought by him under his RTI application has not been provided to him. The appellant further submitted that the information has been denied on the ground that the information sought pertains to personal information of an individual and hence, the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant was denied since it pertains to personal information, disclosure of which would not serve any public interest. Therefore, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 13.08.2014 about the reasons for not disclosing the information. The respondent further refuted the appellant's allegation that all the information has been denied, as information as available on point nos. 4 to 8 of the RTI application has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission after hearing both the parties and upon perusal of records observes that all the information sought by the appellant under his RTI application will not be covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore makes the following observations corresponding to the points of the RTI application in which information has to be provided and the reasons for the same, reply to the remaining points of the RTI application, not addressed below will stand as it is in the FAA's order.
Point Nos. of RTI Observations/Directions
application
1 Details of amount claimed during official tour to be disclosed as
the same involves expenditure from the Government exchequer. 6 Job profile, job responsibilities of the individual has to be disclosed as the same is an obligation on the public authority under Section 4 3 of the RTI Act.
8 With regard to any complaint against the individual concerned, the Commission takes note that the same was denied by the FAA to the appellant not on the grounds that the information is personal but stating that no such enquiry is in existence. However, as per the letter of the IG(HQ)/CVO dated 25.04.2014 addressed to DG, NDRF, it is evident that an enquiry was in existence. In view of this, the Commission would like to counsel the FAA to be careful in future before passing an order so that incorrect and misleading information is not provided to the appellant.
9 Information regarding involvement of the person concerned in purchase of any equipment during his tenure in NDRF involves public interest as disclosure would reveal any malpractice, if any, during procurement of equipment.
11 Information sought in this point contains two parts. First is with regard to the date of leave taken by the person concerned and second part relates to the reason for absence. First part involves no personal component and public has a right to know about the presence/absence of a Government employee. Reason for leave cannot be disclosed as the same may lead to disclosure of personal reasons.
17 This particular points contains four sub points in which information regarding LTC and destination of travel has been sought. Only information pertaining to subpoint (a),(b) and (c) to be provided. Information sought in subpoint (d) is with regard to travel destination, the same is a personal information of the individual, hence is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4
7. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 17 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer 5