Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chander vs Union Public Service Commission on 12 June, 2023
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/UPSCM/A/2022/146494
Ramesh Chander अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, RTI CELL, DHOLPUR
HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW
DELHI-110069. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/03/2023
Date of Decision : 30/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 27/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 22/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"In connection with the DPC which was conducted by the UPSC in the year 2022 for the promotion to the cadre of the Principal Commissioners of Income Tax 1 from the cadre of the Commissioners on 08-07-2022, it is requested to supply the minutes along with the chart showing the assessment of the officers recommended or not recommended along with the reasons wherever applicable."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 27.07.2022 stating as under:
"I am to refer to your application dated 11.07.2022 under the RTI Act, 2005 on the subject cited above and to say that a proposal for convening DPC for the vacancy year 2021 for promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was received from the Department of Revenue and a meeting of DPC to consider the same was held in the Commission on 08.07.2022.
It is further stated that as the Competent Authority has not yet taken final decision on the recommendations of the said DPC, the information/documents as sought vide your application referred to above cannot be provided at this stage in accordance with the principles enunciated below Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005. Once the recommendations of the DPC are implemented by the concerned Department after decision of the Competent Authority, the requisite information can be provided for which the applicant may file a fresh application."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 22.08.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by Sunil Kumar Gaur through intra-video conference.
Respondent: S S Negi, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The instant matter was being heard in continuation of a similar set of cases vide File Nos. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/140581 + 141441, therefore the CPIO submitted at the outset that the submissions in the averred two cases shall apply to this case as well.
Following were the CPIO's submissions in the averred cases:
"The CPIO submitted that the permissible information in terms of the DPC minutes were provided to the Appellant, but the recommendations and gradings of the Appellant were placed in a sealed cover pending a vigilance case against him. He further submitted that it is not for him to open the sealed cover or for that matter any other authority other than the concerned department, only upon the conclusion of disciplinary case/criminal prosecution resulting in dropping of 3 allegations against the charged officer, and when found fit, the Appellant will be promoted by the ACC."
The CPIO further added that, however, the difference in the instant case is that the Appellant sought for the information within 3 days of holding the relevant DPC (wherein he was included in the zone of consideration), by which time the DPC recommendations were not approved by ACC, hence in this case, even the DPC minutes could not be provided.
At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO submitted that nonetheless, if the Commission so directs, he can provide the relevant DPC minutes to the Appellant as was provided in the earlier corresponding set of RTI Applications, referred to in File Nos. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/140581 + 141441.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that as far as the information related to the assessment of other officers/third parties is concerned, disclosure of the same stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 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 members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of 4 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..."
Now, as regards the denial of the information related to the DPC minutes is concerned, the CPIO has duly justified the denial as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. As for, the information related to the assessment of the Appellant, the Commission finds that the decision in File Nos. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/140581 + 141441 covers the said aspect.
Having observed as above, as a matter of limited relief, in pursuance of the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide the available and relevant DPC minutes to the Appellant, free of cost, with adequate liberty to redact/withhold the information contained therein related to third parties that stand exempted under Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
The above directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5