Central Information Commission
Gargi Mitra vs Chittaranjan National Cancer ... on 13 June, 2019
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/CNCIN/A/2018/609204-BJ
Ms. Gargi Mitra
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute
37, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Road
Bakul Bagan, Kalighat, Kolkata
West Bengal - 700026
2. CPIO
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (NCD - II Section)
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.06.2019
Date of Decision : 13.06.2019
Date of RTI application 23.05.2016
CPIO's response 28.10.2017
Date of the First Appeal 30.09.2017/
14.11.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 21.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding declaration of Assets and Liabilities of the employees named in the RTI application for the years 2014 and 2015 as per Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 etc. The CPIO, M/o Health & Family Welfare (NCD-II Section), vide its letter dated 23.09.2016 transferred the RTI application to PIO, CNCI, Kolkata for furnishing the requisite information directly to the applicant. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the concerned CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO, CNCI, Kolkata, vide its Page 1 of 4 letter dated 28.10.2017 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant again approached the FAA against CPIO's response dated 28.10.2017. The FAA, CNCI, Kolkata, vide its order dated 21.12.2017 stated that the relevant information had already been communicated to the Appellant vide letter dated 28.10.2017. It was further informed that as per Section 44(S) of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the institute had not made any publication in the official website so far.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Yogender Kumar, US (NCD-II), M/oH&FW and Ms. Urvashi Maithani, ASO, M/oH&FW in person; and Dr. Tapas Maji, Director & FAA, Kolkata, Dr. Sutapa Mukherjee, PIO, Kolkata and Dr. Deepa Chakravarti, CPIO, Kolkata through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent (MoH&FW) submitted that since the matter pertained to Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Kolkata, the application was transferred to the concerned Organization. The Respondent (CNCI, Kolkata) submitted that they had received the First Appeal of the Appellant dated 30.09.2017 only, the reply to which was furnished on 28.10.2017 wherein the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On being queried by the Commission, whether the Appellant was working in the Respondent Public Authority, the Respondent replied in the negative and further informed that Mr. Ashim Dutta had retired in the year 2017. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated NIL wherein the chronological sequence of the replies given against the RTI was reiterated. It was further submitted that in her First Appeal, the Appellant had submitted that the requested information was needed for Ejectment Suit No. 19158 of 2013 filed before the 8th Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, Kolkata and the purpose of RTI application was to establish whether the two Govt. of India Employees (whose information was being sought) were owners of a flat of their own in Kolkata. In respect of the implementation of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and declaration of assets and liabilities for the years 2014-15 for Govt. of India employees, it was submitted that the matter was listed for consideration at its next Governing Council Meeting. The Respondent (M/oH&FW) when queried about the implementation of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and declaration of assets and liabilities for the years 2014-15 for Govt. of India employees, feigned ignorance about the updated status of its implementation. He however assured to re-check the relevant details with the concerned Administrative Section in line with the instructions issued by DOP&T. The Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......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. 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 of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the Page 2 of 4 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."
Furthermore, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held 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
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
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, 5 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."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal Corporation Delhi vs. Rajbir W.P.(C) 13219/2009 and CM 14393/2009, decided on 24.08.2017 had held as under:
"9..................Respondent has not provided any credible justification for seeking information regarding the personal assets of the MCD employee in question.
10. There can be no doubt that the information sought by respondent is personal information concerning an employee of MCD. Such information could be disclosed only if respondent could establish that disclosure of such information was justified by larger public interest. Even if the PIO was satisfied that disclosure of such information was justified, the PIO was required to follow the procedure given under Section 11 of the Act; that is, the PIO was required to give a notice to the concerned employee stating that he intends to disclose the Page 3 of 4 information and invite the employee to make submissions on the question whether such information ought to be disclosed."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of above referred decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, in respect of the updated status of implementation of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 and declaration of assets and liabilities for the years 2014-15 for Govt. of India employees, he would respond after ascertaining the facts from his Ministry within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(S. S. Rohilla) (एस.एस. रो ह ला)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 13.06.2019
Copy to:
1. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 'A' Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 Page 4 of 4