Central Information Commission
Shri Ram vs Department Of Posts on 7 April, 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/POSTS/A/2021/609161 +
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/619514
Shri Ram ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts, Accounts
Officer, Administration I, Office of the
General Manager (Finance), RTI Cell, PAO,
Delhi - 110054. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/04/2021
Date of Decision : 05/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2020
CPIO replied on : 23/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 08/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 11/02/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12/03/2021
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/609161
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.12.2020 seeking the following information:
"Provide the photocopy of list of re-verification of eligibility of all AAO-LDCE- 2018 prepared in response the Directorate letter No. 301(24)/2018/PA- Admn.III dated 20.04.2020."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 23.12.2020 stating as follows:-
"..............the required document of re-verification of eligibility of all AAO LDCE-2018 is related to the Directorate and can be collected from Postal Directorate."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.01.2021. FAA's order dated 11.02.2021 held that the data contained in the report is personal data of the officers and is third party information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. He further harped on the fact that CPIO instead of transferring the RTI Application to the Directorate intentionally obstructed the information by advising him to approach the concerned record holder for the information sought.
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/619514 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2021 seeking the following information:
1. The photocopies of Note Sheets/views/suggestions on which competent authority has approved the dies- non order which were circulated vide office order No.423 dated 21.12.2020 on the basis of approval of competent authority through file No. Admin-I/LAI/ Sp.CL/20-21/TR .... in r/o 21 officials. Whose names are contained in the orders itself.
2. The photocopies of Note Sheets/views/suggestions on which the competent authority has approved and an order were circulated vide No. Admin-III/Staff II /union matters /20- 21/TR .... dated 18.12.2020 2 regarding deduct wages/salary of 31 officials. Whose names are contained in the orders itself.
3. The photocopies of Note Sheets/views/suggestions on which the competent authority has approved/ sanctioned special casual leave on account of jaat reservation andolan and an order were circulated vide No. AdmIn-I/LA-I/Misc/2015-16/TR .. .. dated 16.03.2016 in r/o of 14 officials.
Whose names are contained in the orders itself.
4. Photo copy of call/notice given by the all India Postal Accounts Employees Association w.e.f. 21.09.2020 reg. a series of agitational programed.
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 19.03.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1, 2, 3:- "The information sought by you couldn't be provided under section 8(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 4:- Photocopy of call/notice given by the All India Postal Employees Association w.e.f 21.09.2020 is not available in this office."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2021. FAA's order dated 15.04.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO ignoring the fact that he was one of the affected persons of the averred dies-non order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Yudisthir Sahu, Accounts officer & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that complete information has not been provided to him ignoring the fact that he was also one of the candidates who had appeared and qualified AAO-LDCE exams 2018 and also one of the affected party of averred dies non order reference of which has been quoted in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/619514. He further harped on the inaction 3 of the Respondent in the alleged fraud in selection of the candidates of LDCE for which he sought the intervention of the Commission and also prayed for directing the CPIO to provide relevant information of selected candidates.
The CPIO reiterated the averred replies and submitted that entire records of information sought have been forwarded by their office to the Directorate therefore, the Appellant may approach the Directorate of Post for getting the desired information.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of records that the information sought by the Appellant in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/609161 and at points no. 1-3 of RTI Application in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/619514 contains the elements of personal information of selected candidates and other officers which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that extent denial of information by the CPIO and FAA was in the spirit of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is 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. 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 4 of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Now, considering the Appellant's contentions during hearing that he was one of the candidates the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a revised reply in response to both the RTI Applications along with the relevant available information concerning the Appellant only which will suffices the information sought for in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/609161 and at points no. 1-3 of RTI Application in case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/619514 without divulging the personal details of other candidates/ officers keeping in view the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.
The aforesaid replies/information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5