Central Information Commission
Krishan Kumar vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 2 June, 2023
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/CCITC/A/2022/654295
KRISHAN KUMAR ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, NWR, RTI Cell, Aayakar Bhawan,
Sec-17E, Chandigarh-160017. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/06/2023
Date of Decision : 01/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 11/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 19/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 16/08/2022
Second Appeal dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.06.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Please provide the following information under RTI Act, 2005. You are also requested that the following information may kindly be provided by the Pr. CCIT, NWR, Chandigarh.
1. Provide the list (Name, seniority No. Date of Joining as an inspector, passing of Exam of ITO) of Income Tax Officer who have promoted as an Income Tax Officer from RY 1995-96 to 2020-21.
2. Provide list of physically handicapped employees (Name, seniority No. Date of Joining as an inspector, passing of Exam of ITO) who have been promoted as income tax Officer from RY 1995-96 to 2020-21.
3. Provide category ( OH,VH,HH) of all physically handicapped employee who have been promoted as Income Tax Officer from the period from 1995-96 to 2020-21.
4. Provide the list (Name, seniority No. Date of Joining as an inspector) of Income Tax Inspector who have promoted as an Income Tax Inspector from RY 1995-96 to 2020-21.
5. Provide a list of physically handicapped employees (Name, seniority No. Date of Joining as an inspector) who have been promoted as income tax Inspector from RY 1995-96 to 2020-21.
6. Provide category (OH, VH,1-1H) of all physically handicapped employees who have been promoted as Income Tax Officer from the period from 1995-96 to 2020-
21.
7. Please provide the list of physically handicapped employee (Name, seniority No. Date of Joining as a Sr. Tax Assistant) who have been granted reservation in promotion as a physically handicapped from the period 1995-96 to 2020-21.
8. Please provide the list of physically handicapped employee (Name, seniority No. Date of Joining as a Inspector) who have been granted reservation in promotion as a physically handicapped from the period 1995-96 to 2020-21."2
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.07.2022 stating as under:
"In this regard, it is intimated that the applicant has not shown as to how the disclosure of the information sought serves the larger public interest & no larger public interest warranting the disclosure has been justified by the applicant. Further, the information sought by the applicant is an internal matter of the I department and relates to the personal information of employees covered by the exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. As per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, only that part of information related to government officials can be made public which is related to public activity. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 16.08.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Oscar Bansal, Inspector present through video conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO on the following arguments-
"...The appellant is a Government Servant working as Inspector of Income. At the time of filing of application under Right to Information Act appellant/ complainant was working with the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (AU) 1, Hisar. That I Krishan Kumar (physically handicapped (OHI) joined Income tax department on 08.02.2008 as a Tax Assistant, promoted as a Sr. Tax Assistant in May,2012 for the R.Y. 2011-12. Further I have qualified the departmental exam of Inspector and promoted as an Inspector on 18.12.2014 for the R.Y. 2014-15 (without granting reservation in promotion). I had already qualified departmental exam of Income Tax Officer in 2015. The appellant affected by not getting reservation in 3 promotion. The undersigned has filled application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking some information from the CPIO 0/o Pr. CCIT, NWR, Chandigarh. The CPIO failed to give the information and give un-cleared reply(copy of the same enclosed). Aggrieved by the order of CPIO 0/o Pr. CCIT, NWR, Chandigarh the applicant filed appeal before the First Appllate authority, i.e. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Hct.)(Admn.) - cum-FAA 0/o Pr. CCIT, NWR, Chandigarh who vide its letter dated 16.08.2022 disposed of the application by relied the decision of CPIO. The appellant surprised that the FAA without considering the point wise comments of appellant against CPIO order simply disposed off.
He further harped on the fact that even otherwise such list of employees should be made public in order to maintain transparency and probity in the system. The CPIO while reiterating the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act submitted that the core contention raised by the Appellant revolves around his grievance for non-promotion to the Income Tax Officer grade regarding which the reason for not considering his name has already been informed through administrative orders. However, information relating to the promotion orders can be accessed from their weblink and the Appellant being a part of this organization can easily obtain such records without resorting to RTI channel.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of details of list of employees as sought for under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information of third party including the list of all physically handicapped employee and their personal details by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the 4 Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also 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 of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6