Central Information Commission
Mr Rajesh Gouhari vs Central Vigilance Commission on 27 March, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000998SS
March 27, 2014
Appellant : Shri Rajesh Gouhari
Respondents : Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2014
ORDER
The present appeal, filed by Shri Rajesh Gouhari against Central Vigilance Commission, was taken up for hearing on 27.03.2014 when the Respondents were present through Shri Arun Kumar, Director. The Appellant was present in person.
2. The Appellant through an RTI application dated 03.10.2012 sought information against 5 points, inter alia, regarding the status and action taken on his complaints dated 16.08.2012, 30.08.2012, 31.08.2012, 20.09.2012 and 25.09.2012.
3. The CPIO vide his letter dated 05.12.2012 furnished point wise information/reply to the Appellant. As for point Nos. 1 & 2, the CPIO furnished copies of relevant note sheet to the Appellant dealing with the complaints CIC/SM/A/2013/000998SS Page 1 of 6 2 mentioned in his RTI application. As for point Nos. 3 & 5, the CPIO, while mentioning that the information sought is related to third party, advised the Appellant to approach the CPIO of Edcil (another public authority). He cited DoPT Circular dated 24.09.2010 in this connection. As for point No. 4, he provided copies of CVC's OM dated 08.08.2012 and DoPT's guidelines dated 11.02.1988 to the Appellant.
4. Dissatisfied with the reply/information given by the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal dated 14.02.2013 before the Appellate Authority which the Appellate Authority disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2013 upholding the CPIO's reply.
5. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission complaining that the information furnished by the CPIO is incomplete.
6. During the hearing, the Appellant's RTI queries and the Respondents' replies thereto were discussed as given below:
Point Nos.1 & 2:
7. The Appellant complained that copies of note sheet provided to him by the CPIO do not contain the reference number of his complaints, on account of which it is difficult to find out as to which note sheet pertains to which complaint of his. He also alleges that the note sheet provided to him have been tampered with. The Respondents, present during the hearing, clarified that the note sheet contains the "FR No." under which the complaints in question were dealt with by them and that in the reply of the CPIO they have given the "FR No." against the date of each 2 complaints in tabular form. They have also no difficulty in allowing the inspection of the records to the Appellant in order to set the Appellant's reservations at rest.
8. In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby directed to allow the inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. Time - 3 weeks of receipt of this order.
Point No. 3:
9. In this point the Appellant wanted to obtain copy of some letters issued by EdCIL in relation to PIDR complaint against officials of EdCIL.
10. The Commission finds that the information sought in this point relates to personal information of third party (official of EdCIL), disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third party/individuals. Such nature of information attracts exemption under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission and Ors.; SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012; dated 03.10.2012, while dealing with such nature of information, had observed as follows:
"13. 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 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 theother CIC/SM/A/2013/000998SS Page 3 of 6 4 hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual..."
11. Moreover the Appellant has not established any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of this information. Therefore, no disclosure can be allowed with regard to this point.
Point No.4
12. Information has been given to the Appellant. 4 Point No.5:
13. The information sought by the Appellant in this point is not specific. He is therefore advised to be more specific.
14. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated by (D.C. Singh) Deputy Registrar Address to the Parties
1. Shri Rajesh Gouhari A1/107, Janakpuri New Delhi 110058
2. The Central Public Information Officer (RTI) Central Vigilance Commission Satarrkta Bhawan, Block A GPO Complex, INA New Delhi 110 023 CIC/SM/A/2013/000998SS Page 5 of 6 6
3. The Appellate Authority (RTI) Central Vigilance Commission Satarrkta Bhawan, Block A GPO Complex, INA New Delhi 110 023 6