Central Information Commission
Sajjadhana Lakshmi vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca), ... on 3 September, 2018
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/CCITB/A/2017/139144-BJ
Mrs. Sajjadhana Lakshmi,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & ITO (HQ) (Audit),
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit),
Room No. 706, 7th Floor, 80 ft. Road,
BMTC Depot, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560095
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.08.2018
Date of Decision : 03.09.2018
Date of RTI application 25.10.2016
CPIO's response 04.11.2016
Date of the First Appeal 07.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 13.04.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the leave obtained by one Mr. Y. Rajendra for the period from June 2012 to 28.10.2016 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO and DCIT (Hq) (Admn), O/o the Pr. CIT, Karnataka and Goa Region, vide its letter dated 04.11.2016, transferred the RTI application to the ITO (HQ) (Audit) and CPIO, O/o the CIT (Audit) Bengaluru u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that the information sought was not available in their office. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.04.2017, while concurring with the reply of the CPIO and while relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 Page 1 of 4 dated 03/10/2012, held that no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Sajjadhana Lakshmi along with her son Mr. Siva Raghvendra, through VC; Respondent: Mr. K. V. Aravind, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax and Mr. Y. Sivakumar, CPIO / ITO through VC;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided, till date. In its reply, the Respondent while referring to the decision of the CPIO/ FAA stated that the information was rejected while relying on the decision 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 since it was the personal information of the third party and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure was justified by the Appellant. During the hearing, it was also conveyed that information was sought in reference to a private civil dispute between the parties and that a writ petition in W. P. 22754 / 2017 was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A reference was also made by the Respondent to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017. The Appellant while acknowledging the pendency of the said dispute before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the matter related to encroachment of a public road in Pedapulivarru village of Bhattiprolu Mandal, Guntur District, A.P. and that the Panchayat tried its best to remove the encroachment but the said Officer from IT Department was influencing the Panchayat and Revenue Departments. He had approached Senior Officials in the IT Department but no response was forthcoming.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written correspondence from the ITO (HQ) (Audit), CIT (Audit), Bangalore addressed to the ITO (HQ), O/o the Pr. CIT, Bengaluru dated 23.08.2018 wherein it was stated that the jurisdiction over the matter did not vest with their office as Shri Yalavarti Rejendra, the Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-7 was presently not working there. Further the details like Service Register was also not available in their office, thus the application was forwarded to the ITO (HQ), O/o the Pr. CIT, Bengaluru.
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 Page 2 of 4 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 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter 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."
The Appellant was not able to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Page 3 of 4DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter as the subject matter relates to a Civil Dispute which is pending adjudication at an appropriate forum.
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)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 03.09.2018
Page 4 of 4