Central Information Commission
Shri M. Raja Manohar vs Ordnance Factory, Mod, Medak, Ap on 18 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00693 dated 21-5-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri M. Raja Manohar
Respondent: Ordnance Factory, MOD, Medak, AP
Ministry of Defence (MOD)
FACTS
By an RTI application of 19-1-07 Shri M. Raja Manohar of Movva Mandalam, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh applied to the PIO, Ordnance Factory, Medak seeking the following information:
1. "Computers had been issued to Group-A officer in years 2004-
2006. The list, showing the issued dates as well as acknowledgement of Officers, in possession of JT.GM/ITC or JT.GM/PC.
2. Safety shoes had been issued to Group-A Officers, in possession of JT.GM/Safety or competent officer.
3. The following list may be prepared (to be attest) and issued regarding transfers of Group-A Officers. For years 2005,2006 and 2007 may be given.
1) Name 2) Designation, 3) Date of transfer fax came, 4) Date of relieving asked by Estt. Section, 5) Date requested by Officer, 6) Date of Factory Order made to relieve with date proposed to SoS. 7) Whether the Factory Order cancelled. 8) IF so how many times it had been cancelled, please provide FO date as well as proposed SoS on each F.O. 9) Whether any communication came directing to relieve the Officer immediately. Please specify date. 10) Date of communication and FO made date as well as SoS date.
2. The employees who availed leave on medical grounds.
Please issue certified tabular form for years 2004, 2005 and 2006:
1) Name, 2) Designation, 3) Total period of leave availed, please specify with date, 4) Whether any communication had been sent to leave address directing to appear for second medical opinion at OFMK Hospital, 5) How many times it had been sent, 6) Whether the employee appeared for second medical opinion, 7) After resuming duties by submitting both unfit and fitness certificates whether he was sent to second medical opinion at OFMK Hospital, 8) Based upon the Medical Board report 1 decision taken by competent authority on leave application, 9) Whether he had been charge sheeted for not appearing second medical opinion at OFMK Hospital, using the telegram as evidence."
To this he received a reply on 10-2-07 with the complete list of computers issued to Group-A Officers with month and year, safety shoes issued to Group-A Officers with date of issue, but with regard to points no. 3 and 4 he was informed as follows: -
"Point Nos. 3 & 4: Against Point No. 3 the applicant has asked for name, designation, date of transfer, date of release, date requested by officer, date o Factory Order releasing the officer, whether FO cancelled, how many times it has been cancelled, various communications received regarding release of the officers and Point No. 4 regarding request made by employees who availed leave on medical grounds and their details during the year 2004, 2005 and 2006. It is stated that the information available with the public authority is available in fiduciary relationship. Unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, the same cannot be given as per section 8 (e) of RTI Act. Further, the attention of the applicant is drawn to 8 (j) 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 cannot be given unless the 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. Moreover, the collection for such information against the Officers over several years with all the details of communications and correspondence would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. So, the attention of the applicant is drawn to section 7 (9) of RTI Act also.
Since the applicant has not brought out any grounds of public interest and the undersigned is satisfied that no public interest is involved in the disclosure of such information, the information against these points in terms of the provision of Right to Information Act cannot be furnished.
Further, the attention of the applicant is also drawn to the decision of the Central Information Commission's Decision No. 306/IC (A)/2006 F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00600 dated 27.9.06 in which the Commission ruled that the applicant had some grievances regarding service matters. Under Right to 2 Information Act, there are no provisions for the Redressal of employees and the applicant has been advised to approach the competent authority for Redressal of the grievances."
Aggrieved by this decision Shri Raja Manohar moved his first appeal on 9.3.2007 in which he repeated the initial request without expanding on how he had found the response inadequate. However, in his order of 22.3.2007 Shri D. M. Gupta, GM and First Appellate Authority simply repeated the response given by the CPIO to the original application. Appellants prayer before us in his second appeal is as follows; -
"If the information I sought does not come under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) and 7 (9) of RTI Act 2005 the penal provisions of the RTI Act 2005 may be invoked."
The appeal was heard through Videoconference on 18-8-2008. The following are present at NIC Studio, Hyderabad.
Appellant: Shri M. Raja Manohar
Respondents:
Shri N. N. Kalani, CPIO, Ordnance Factory.
Shri B. S. Reddy, APIO.
Shri Ravi Kumar, Office Assistant (RTI Cell).
CPIO Shri N. N. Kalani, Ordnance Factory, Hyderabad submitted that Shri Raja Manohar was simply pursuing a grievance by demanding the information sought. On the same matter this Commission had already pronounced its decision of 26.3.2008 on the basis of which he has already been shown the files regarding transfers. The directions of this Commission regarding in that decision as to what will constitute public interest in exempting information from disclosure have been accepted.
Appellant Shri Raja Manohar, however, in acknowledging the inspection of these records stated that in certain cases the request for medical leave of the concerned had been referred to a Medical Board for a second opinion, and not in other cases. However, he was not shown the information regarding second opinion of the Medical Board.
DECISION NOTICE 3 Having heard the arguments and perused the records we find that in our Decision Notice in an appeal between the same parties in CIC/WB/A/2007/00438 announced on 19.6.'08, we have already directed inspection of files by appellant Shri Raja Manohar in the office of CPIO Shri Kalani on 30. 6.'08. It would appear from the above that the request of appellant stands met. His further request for being shown the medical opinion will certainly fall within the definition of invasion of privacy u/s 8 (1) (j). We have no law defining the invasion of privacy but have been guided by the UK Data Protection Act and US Law of Torts.
We have no equivalent of UK's Data Protection Act, 1998, Sec 2 of which, titled Sensitive Personal Data, reads as follows:
In this Act "sensitive personal data" means personal data consisting of information as to:
a) The racial or ethnic origin of the data subject
b) His political opinions
c) His religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature
d) Whether he is a member of a Trade Union
e) His physical or mental health or condition1
f) His sexual life
g) The commission or alleged commission by him of any offence
h) Any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.
The US Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, § 652 defines the Intrusion to Privacy more generally in the following manner:
One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person2.
If we were to construe privacy to mean protection of personal data, this would be a suitable reference point to help define the concept. In this context, as may be seen the information sought by appellant Sh Raja Manohar is of private information, falling squarely under the categories emphasised by us in 1 Emphasis added 2
-Do-4
the above extracts. The action of PIO is clearly in accordance with the law. Therefore, in accordance with this we feel that the information sought by appellant in the present case stands provided. The appeal being unsustainable is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18-8-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18-8-2008 5