Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Jain vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 27 December, 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/DVCOR/A/2022/628119
Ashok Kumar Jain ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Damodar Valley Corporation,
DVC Towers, VIP Road,
Kolkata-700054 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/12/2022
Date of Decision : 14/12/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 07/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 25/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 24/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 10.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"Information requested for is related to Shri Tapan Adhikari, Ex- Sr. Additional Director (HR), DVC, Kolkata. He was promoted from M5 level to M6 level after approval of his case by the DVC board as he was not meeting the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of M6 level from M5 and as 1 a result his case was put up before the DVC Board for approval. Information requested to be provided:
1.Please inform the date of promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikari from M5 level to MB level and please supply the copy of the said promotion order.
2.Please inform (a) the name and designation of the authority, who prepared & initiated the Agenda Note and (b) the name and designation of the authority, who approved the Agenda Note placed in the DVC Board meeting for promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikari from M5 to M6 level. 3.Please provide the copies of the Agenda Note placed before the DVC Board proposing the promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikari from M5 to M6 level and the corresponding Resolution of the DVC Board approving the proposal of the said Agenda Note.
4.Please inform the criteria of promotion from M5 level to M6 level which were not being met by Shri Tapan Adhikari for which the approval of the DVC Board was required and obtained to effect the said promotion. 5.Please supply the copy of the circular/order/guidelines by which the DVC Board is empowered to approve the promotion of the officer of M5 level/ M6 level, who is not meeting the eligibility criteria.
6.Please inform (a) the name and designation of the authority, who prepared & initiated the Agenda Note for promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikari from M6 level to M7 level (b) the name and designation of the authority, who approved the said Agenda Note placed in the DVC Board meeting held on 18.11.2021.
7. Please provide the copy of the Resolution of the DVC Board meeting dated 18.11.2021 on the Agenda Note proposing the promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikari from M6 to M7 level.
8.Please inform the names of the officials who were not promoted on similar grounds for not meeting the eligibility criteria for promotion from MS to M6 and from M6 to M7 level respectively, but their cases were not put up before the DVC Board for consideration of their promotion."
The CPIO furnished a detailed point wise reply to the appellant on 07.01.2022. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.01.2022. FAA's order dated 24.02.2022 held as under:-
1. "The CPIO, DVC, Kolkata shall revisit her reply dated 07.01.2022 to query under sl. no. of the RTI application dated 10.12.2021 and after taking into consideration the observation made at al. no. 9 above shall extend 2 information, which otherwise is not exempted, to the appellant at the earliest.
2. The CPIC, DVC, Kolkata shall send a compliance report of this order to the office of the Appellate Authority."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of complete information in response to points no. 2 - 8 of RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: S. Sill, DCE & CPIO along with Ranjit Kumar Rajak, GM (HR) present through video- conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the instant Appeal of the Appellant has been heard together simultaneously along with his six more Second Appeals/Complaints. As regards the instant Appeal, the Commission counselled the Appellant that the information sought by him pertaining to promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikari, Ex- Sr. Additional Director (HR), DVC, Kolkata impinges on his privacy which is directly hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. To this, the Appellant contested in a vague manner that disclosure of information entails public interest which veils the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards her latest written submission dated 13.12.2022, relevant extracts of which are as under -
"...3. In the reply under sl. No. 2, 3, 6, 7, it has been mentioned that the information sought for is part of the proceedings of Corporation Meetings and confidential in nature in terms of Regulation 10 of Damodar Valley Corporation (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1951. Copy of Regulation 10 of Damodar Valley Corporation (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1951 Is attached (marked 'A').
xxx
5. As per decision of First Appellate Authority, the RTI file was placed before DVC Board for consent of the members for disclosure of information to Shri A.K. Jain.3
6. In line with the decision of Corporation, the Meeting No. and date of meeting in which promotion of Shri Tapan Adhikarl from MS to M6 level was approved along with the promotion order of Shri Tapan Adhlkari from M5 to M6, had been communicated to Shri A. K. Jain vide letter dated 28.07.22. Copy of the letter Is enclosed as Annexure-IV.
7. The above Information has been received by the CPIO on 28.07.2022 atter several reminders. The copy of reply that has been received by the CPIO is enclosed as Annexure-V.
8. In this connection, it Is to be mentioned that CPIO, DVC, Kolkata does not have any authority to generate information for extending Information to the applicant/appellant.
9. The reply has been extended as expeditiously as possible based on the information received from the deemed PIOs. All out effort has been made from CPIO's end in letter and true spirit to dispose of the application..."
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission upon a perusal of facts on record observes that promotion details of the concerned third party officer as sought by the Appellant at points no. 2- 8( except at point no. 5) pertains to his personal information which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 4 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 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..."
However, ignoring the aforesaid aspect, the CPIO has erred in furnishing the relevant records of the concerned third parties to the Appellant later without seeking his consent/objection under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and follow due process of law as envisaged under the RTI Act before divulging any third party's exempted information.
In view of the foregoing observations, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6