Central Information Commission
Ningaraju K vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/HALTD/A/2018/623703
Ningaraju K ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
15/1, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore - 560001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 23/02/2018
CPIO replied on : 02/04/2018
First appeal filed on : 07/04/2018
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 17/06/2018
Date of Hearing : 17/12/2019
Date of Decision : 17/12/2019
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant in 18 points sought information about caste verification in respect of Hemavathy J, Ex-Senior Manager, Planning-Corporate Office.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Maj. T. Srihari, DGM(Security) & CPIO, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Corporate Office, 15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore present through VC.
Upon the instance of the Commission, CPIO submitted that the individual regarding whose caste status has been sought in the RTI Application is a dismissed employee of the organization and the Appellant is her husband. He further submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision Commission has gone through the case records and observes that the reply of the CPIO is inappropriate as the information sought by the Appellant pertains to third party. Further, it may also be noted that the information pertains to caste certificate and its verification order of the competent authority, enquiry proceedings, show-cause notice etc. against a third party, disclosure of which will be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless Appellant justifies larger public interest.
In this regard, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) in service matters of government employees has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional 2 File No : CIC/HALTD/A/2018/623703 Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court.
Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-
'12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation 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 or 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.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.'
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1..."3
The CPIO has grossly erred in providing the said information to the Appellant without seeking consent of the concerned third party as prescribed under Section 11 of RTI Act. Moreover, no larger public interest has been pleaded for the disclosure of this information by the Appellant. Then CPIO is hereby advised to remain careful in future. The present CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO at his present address for taking note of the adverse comments of the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Copy to be served through present CPIO to:
Then PIO
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
15/1, Cubbon Road,
Bangalore - 560001
-- (For taking note of the adverse comments of the Commission)--
4