Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shri R.S. Antil vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 8 July, 2008

               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             .....
                                     F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00061
                                       Dated, the 08th July, 2008.

 Appellant      : Shri R.S. Antil

 Respondents : Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)

This second-appeal came up for hearing on 24.06.2008 pursuant to Commission's hearing notice dated 28.04.2008. Appellant was absent, while the respondents were represented by the Appellate Authority (AA), Dr.Naresh Kumar and the CPIO, Dr.Baljit S. Bedi.

2. The RTI-application dated 08.10.2007 of the appellant reads as follows:-

"Please provide the following:-

a) A copy of DO letter No.15-1(80)/83-Vig. dated 26th July, 2005 written by the then DG, CSIR (Dr.R A Mashelkar) to the then CVC (Shri P.Shankar)

b) Copies of notes on the basis of which the aforesaid letter was written, including the one where consent of VP, CSIR had been obtained.

c) Copies of notes, if any, on the basis of which DO letter No.nil dated 08th June, 2007 was written by Dr T Ramasami, DG, CSIR to Shri Pratyush Sinha, CVC, including the one where approval of VP, CSIR was obtained."

3. Both CPIO and AA declined to disclose the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

4. During the hearing, the respondents submitted that the appellant herein was a Deputy Secretary level officer of CSIR. He was holding the charge of Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the organization besides his substantive charge. Following some correspondence between the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the head of the public authority, viz. DG, CSIR, the appellant was divested of the chare of CVO. Now by using the RTI Act, he wishes to access the correspondence ― admittedly confidential -- between various authorities which culminated in his divesture.

5. Respondents pleaded that such disclosure in the appellant's own matter should not be allowed, lest it erodes organizational discipline and severely constricts the head of the public authority's ability to take informed decision about what responsibility to trust to which subordinate.

6. Appellant stated that he was already in possession of a letter dated 08.06.2007 written by Dr.T.Ramasamy, the then DG, CSIR (officiating) to CVC along with a confidential letter dated 12.07.2007 written by OSD (CVC) to Director (Vig), Department of Personnel and Training on the same subject. These were provided to the appellant by the CVC's office.

7. It is the appellant's argument that when the CVC could provide documents relating to his case, there could be no reason why similar documents could not be provided by the respondents, viz. CSIR.

8. The Commission could not disagree with the appellant more. Regardless of what information he received from CVC, the fact remains that all the information he requisitioned related to him and him alone. In that sense, it is personal to the appellant, which brings it within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. There is absolutely no public interest which would warrant disclosure of this information acknowledgedly personal. Appellant cannot argue that his desire and curiosity to know how and why he was divested of the charge of CVO of the CSIR could, by any stretch of imagination, comprise public interest or relate to a public activity. These are self-serving arguments and deserve to be rejected.

9. In this connection, it is important to mention that while RTI Act, no doubt, endows every citizen with a right to access admissible information, it has to be carefully weighed against the imperative of institutional discipline and the discretion of the heads of the public institutions to choose horses for the courses. There is no reason why the correspondence, which senior officers in any organization have among themselves or with officers of other organization about officers in an organization should be disclosed to such officers. Such correspondence, by its very nature, is made in confidence. Confidentiality of this category of correspondence ― and not their disclosure ― actually serves larger public interest by allowing the senior officers and heads of public institutions the necessary space and time to take decisions about distribution of work among employees of a public authority.

10 This appellant's self image notwithstanding, there is absolutely no reason why he should be directly or indirectly informed about why he was divested of certain responsibility, much less should he be allowed access to correspondence held in his matter between senior officers. If allowed, that will spell the end of the institutional discipline and shall lead to organizational anarchy.

11. Appeal Rejected.

12. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.

Sd/-

( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Authenticated by -

Sd/-

( D.C. SINGH ) Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar Page 3 of 3