Central Information Commission
Mr.Mansaram Rajpal vs Department Of Posts on 30 August, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001027/3357
30 August 2013
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mansaram Rajpal
Retd. Sub-Postmaster (Gauaur)
H. No. 736, Sector-14,
Sonipat, Haryana 131001
Respondent : CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Sonipat Division,
Sonipat, Haryana 131001
RTI application filed on : 13/04/2012
PIO replied on : 23/04/2012
First appeal filed on : 14/05/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 31/05/2012
Second Appeal received on : 06/07/2012
Information sought:
Appellant and other officials were involved in a same case, but proceeding against other officials were initiated under Rule (14) of CCS(CCA) Rule, 1965, while against him under Rule (14) of CCS(CCA) Rule,1965, that was converted into Rule 9 of the CCS (CCA) Rule later by vide memo no. F/4/2/2004/2005/Disc dated 17/10/2005. Aggrieved from this differentiation, he sought the following information:
• Action that has been taken against other officials involved in these five articles of charges. Kindly supply a copy of charge-sheet and punishment memo issued against other officials.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has refused to give information under section 11 (1) of RTI, Act, 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mansaram Rajpal through VC Respondent: Mr. I C Garg, CPIO through VC The appellant stated that he has been charge sheeted under five articles of charges and other employees were also charge sheeted and the only information he wants is the action taken against other employees. The CPIO stated that since the information relates to other employees they had followed the procedure as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI act but the said employees have objected to the disclosure. He further contented that as the appellant has not Page 1 of 2 cited any bona fide public purpose to justify the disclosure of the information the same is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant pointed out that the case was common but the respondents have taken different action against different employees and he needs the information to file an appeal before the competent authority.
Decision notice:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 03/10/2012 Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others [SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012] has held that disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual unless the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the information sought for is for larger public interest.
The CPIO's submissions cannot be faulted as the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any larger public interest. The information is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(A.K.Jha) Deputy Secretary and Deputy Registrar Page 2 of 2