Central Information Commission
Salman Ahmad vs Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium ... on 8 February, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DDATY/A/2017/193948/MMSME
Salman Ahmad ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o Micro, Small and ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Medium Enterprises, Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi.
.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 31-08-2016 FA : 24-10-2016 SA: 20-12-2016
CPIO : 04-02-2019 FAO : Not on Record. Hearing:07-02-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, New Delhi seeking following information relating to Mr. Shyam Dev who retired from the post of Director, MSME Development Institute, Allahabad on 31.03.2009:-
i. "Reasons for not making payment of pension, gratuity and leave encashment at the time of his retirement.Page 1 of 6
ii. Certified copy of regular pension order and date of this order. iii. Certified copy of chargesheets issued to Mr. Shyam Dev during his tenure at the MSME Development Institute, Allahabad."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 24-10-2016 requesting that now the information should be provided to him. As the first appellate authority did not give him any reply, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Salman Ahmad participated in the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Deepak Rao, Director (Admn), participated in the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should provide him the sought for information. He further stated that a copy of chargesheets and the documents on the basis of which Mr. Shyam Dev was given a clean-chit by the MSME should also be provided to him, as it is not the personal information of Mr. Shyam Dev.
Therefore, exemption claimed by the respondent u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not tenable. Moreover, he submitted that a complaint was made by him against Mr. Shyam Dev and therefore, he has right to seek this information.
5. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is a third party information exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and there is no involvement of any public interest in the matter. He also submitted that the appellant has no right to seek documents forming part of the departmental enquiry initiated against the third party, Mr. Shyam Dev, an employee of MSME as per the RTI Act, 2005. He also informed the Commission that the appellant has also not Page 2 of 6 mentioned in the RTI application about any complaint made by him against Mr. Shyam Dev based on which he is seeking information. He is raising new facts at the appellate stage which is different than the contents of the RTI application. Therefore, they have denied the sought for information. Decision:
6. This Commission observed that details of the departmental enquiry report/chargesheet issued to Mr. Shyam Dev cannot be shared to the appellant as it is a matter between employer and employee covered by ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"13. 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 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."
7. Further, this Commission observed that the disclosure of personal details/documents of other employees held by a public authority in a fiduciary relationship is exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) r/w Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the information relating to an individual employee cannot be provided to a third party in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 31.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 titled as Canara Bank Rep. by its Page 3 of 6 Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam & Anr., wherein it was observed as under:-
"5. ...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. 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.
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.
15.It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of Page 4 of 6 the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.
16. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected."
8. In view of the above, it is observed that there is no public interest in the matter and the appellant is seeking same information which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission concurs with the contentions put forth by the respondent.
9. However, regarding the delay in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO is directed to show cause in writing the reasons for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and explain why penalty should not be imposed on him, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 611. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 07.02.2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, O/o the Development Commissioner (MSME), 7th Floor, A-Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110108.
2. Salman Ahmad Page 6 of 6