Central Information Commission
S. Manonmani vs Ordnance Factory Board on 24 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/OFBKO/A/2022/624672
In the matter of
Smt. S Manonmani
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
Avadi, Chennai - 600 054
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 19/08/2021 CPIO replied on : 17/09/2021 First appeal filed on : 19/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 15/11/2021 Second Appeal dated : 30/04/2022 Date of Hearing : 23/03/2023 Date of Decision : 23/03/2023 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC with Adv R Rajesh Kumar Respondent: PV Satheesh Babu, Asst Works Manager/CPIO-Present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided to him on point No. 2 & 3 of the RTI Application, which are stated below:
2. One OS rank Group B Officer had been continuously working in the Y and E HVF Estate office for the past 18 years without any rotation or transfer, despite Y and E sections have been notified as sensitive section by the CVC, MOD and OFB has been mandating rotation or transfer of officials working therein on every 2 or 3 years. In this regard provide all the rotations or transfers made in the sensitive sections of HVF for the past 10 years.
3. Provide copies of completion and work experience certificates submitted by all the vendors who had qualified in the Technical Bid in the Conservancy 1 and Garden Maintenance Contracts at HVF Estate from the tendering year 2017 to 2020.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The legal counsel of the appellant submitted that the appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO on points no. 2 and 3. He disputed at length the administrative actions of the respondent relating to the transfers, postings etc. He also refuted the contentions of the CPIO qua point no. 2 by submitting that the requested information was not sensitive in nature and can be given to a third party. He raised the allegations of corruption and involvement of larger public interest in the matter without adducing any fact/documentary proof of the same.
The CPIO while referring to his written submissions dated 18.03.2023 stated that the information sought for in point no. 2 was indicated to be sensitive in nature by the Defence Production Unit and thus, not provided to the appellant. As regard point no. 3, the requested information was voluminous, therefore, the appellant was requested to visit the information holder section and check the relevant records. He stated that he was willing and ready to handover a copy of the relevant documents if the appellant had visited the office whereas he failed to do so.
Observations:
On a perusal of the entire case record, the Commission observed that the information sought for in point no. 2 relates to all the rotations or transfers made in the sensitive sections of HVF for the past 10 years. The CPIO has claimed that the sought for information was highly sensitive in nature and therefore, cannot be provided to the appellant which was refuted by the appellant. In the view of the Commission, the details of transfers, postings, etc. is part of the service record of the employee which is a matter between the employee and the employer. Such information falls under the expression "personal information" under the RTI Act, 2005. The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Pertinently, the appellant or her legal counsel were not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure.2
Reliance was placed by the Commission on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. R.S. Gupta vs. Government of NCTD and the recent decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr XXX v. State Information Commissioner, Haryana and Ors. Therefore, the Commission held that the information requested for in point no. 2 is barred from disclosure under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission observed that the CPIO has given multiple opportunities to the appellant to visit and conduct inspection of the relevant records as the requested information in point no. 3 was voluminous and scattered across various files. However, the appellant failed to exercise her right to information deliberately by not visiting the office concerned. It was noted that the appellant was also seeking copies of the experience certificates submitted by the vendors in point no. 3 which was third party information and therefore barred from disclosure under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission does not find any scope of giving any relief to appellant in the instant case.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO to send a copy of the written submissions dated 18.03.2023 to the appellant within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order. The replies given by the CPIO were upheld by the Commission.
With the aforementioned observations, the instant second appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3