Central Information Commission
Atulkumar G Shah vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 24 February, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/100501
CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/643284
Shri Atul Kumar G Shah ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2023
Date of Decision : 24.02.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
100501 29.08.2021 28.09.2021 02.10.2021 08.10.2021 04.01.2022
643284 16.04.2022 17.05.2022 20.05.2022 08.06.2022 08.08.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1). CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/100501 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2021 seeking information on following 02 points:-
The PIO, NPCIL vide letter dated 28.09.2021 replied as under:-Page 1 of 5
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2021. The FAA, NPCIL vide order dated 08.10.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was received from the Appellant vide letter dated Nil wherein with regard to point 1 he stated that the information pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings against Shri G K Sharma should be disclosed in public interest. Regarding point 2 he argued that the total arrears to Shri Sharma should be provided in view of the proviso to Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as per which information related to allegation of corruption or violation of human rights are not exempted from disclosure. He therefore prayed for initiating penal action against the CPIO, NPCIL; disciplinary proceedings against the FAA and compensation of Rs 50000 towards cost of filing Second Appeal and the cost of mental harassment meted out to him.
A written submission was also received from the CPIO, NPCIL dated 13.02.2023 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
(2). CIC/NPCOI/A/2022/643284 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2022 seeking information on following point:-
The CPIO, NPCIL vide letter dated 17.05.2022 replied as under:-
"In this regard, information sought by you is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005, being a personal information. Hence, the same cannot be furnished."Page 2 of 5
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2022. The FAA, NPCIL vide order dated 08.06.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission was received from the Appellant vide letter dated Nil wherein with regard to point 1 he stated that the information pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings against Shri G K Sharma should be disclosed in public interest. He also alleged that POSH Act complaints were filed against him and Shri Sharma. However, while conducting inquiry and disciplinary proceedings the members of NPCIL and Disciplinary Cell officials were biased against him and the inquiry against him was defective and pre-meditated. In addition he referred to the decision of the CIC in R S Misra vs Supreme Court of India CIC/SM/A/2011/000237 dated 11.05.2011 wherein it was inter alia held that right to information is a fundamental right of citizens. He also referred to the extract of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Paras Nath Singh vs Union of India WP (C) 7845/2013 wherein it was mentioned that "the question whether information relates to a third party is to be determined by the nature of information and not its source". He therefore prayed for initiating penal action against the CPIO, NPCIL; disciplinary proceedings against the FAA and compensation of Rs 50000 towards cost of filing Second Appeal and the cost of mental harassment meted out to him.
A written submission was also received from the APIO, NPCIL, Mumbai vide letter dated 17.02.2023 wherein the replies available on record were reiterated.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through video conference. He reiterated his written submission and referred to the decision of the CIC in R S Misra vs Supreme Court of India CIC/SM/A/2011/000237 dated 11.05.2011 and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Paras Nath Singh vs Union of India WP (C) 7845/2013 in support of his contention.
The Respondent represented by Shri S.K. Srivastava, CPIO; Shri Vinod Tirkey, Sr Manager, Disciplinary Cell; Shri P K Prasad, DGM and Shri Ashok Shinde, Sr Manager (Finance) participated in the hearing through video conference. The Respondent referred to their earlier replies and written submissions.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that the Appellant is seeking details of PLIS arrears and charge sheet issued against a third party i.e., Shri G.K Sharma which is his personal information exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no larger public interest warranting its disclosure has been justified by the Appellant.Page 3 of 5
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 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 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."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement of UPSC vs. R.K. Jain, LPA No. 618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 wherein while relying on the judgement of Girish Ramachandra Deshpande it was held as under:
".............the ratio of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court is that the 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 and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual."
Furthermore, in a recent judgment in CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal and Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 dated 13.11.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, had observed as under:
"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 of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
Reliance placed by the Appellant on the decisions of the CIC in R S Misra vs Supreme Court of India CIC/SM/A/2011/000237 dated 11.05.2011 and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Paras Nath Singh vs Union of India WP (C) 7845/2013 does not lend any support to his contentions as the Page 4 of 5 decisions are based on complete different facts and circumstances and the observations cited by the Appellant are irrelevant to the instant matter.
In Paras Nath Singh's case, the information seeker was seeking the certified copy of a report sent by the then Governor of Karnataka to the Union Home Ministry relating to the political situation in the State of Karanataka and for imposing President's Rule in that State and the action taken by the Government of India on the said report as also the file notings in respect of the said report. It is in the context of determining whether noting given by junior officers for use by his superiors qualify as third party information exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) that the Court gave the observations that are cited by the Appellant in his written submission.
Similarly in R S Misra's case, the moot point of examination was whether judicial records have to be provided as per the RTI Act or as per the procedure contained in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and to ascertain as to which law overrides the other. It is in this backdrop that the generic observation cited by the Appellant pertaining to the scheme of the RTI Act, 2005 were made by the Commission. The facts of the present case are completely different since in the instant matter the Appellant is alleging arbitrary treatment meted out to him vis a vis a similarly placed employee.
In the light of the abovementioned discussion, the Commission finds that an appropriate response as per the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent and no further adjudication of this bench is required. The instant Second Appeals stand disposed off as such.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5