Central Information Commission
Chaman Lal vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 10 March, 2021
CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535
In the matter of:
Chaman Lal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
/Senior Divisional Material Manager,
Northern Railway, O/o The DRM
Divisional Office, Ferozepur.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03.10.2018 FA : 20.11.2018 SA : 07.02.2019
CPIO Reply: Not on
FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 04.03.2021
Record
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Satender Singh, representative and the Appellant himself
participated in the hearing through video-conferencing from NIC Amritsar.
Respondent: Shri Vijender Kumar, APIO participated in the hearing through
video-conferencing from NIC Firozpur.
Page 1 of 7
CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 03.10.2018 seeking information on the following two points:
1) "Certified copy of official order of staff placed in' the panel of Head T.T.E. (Grade 5000-8000) issued by SR. DPO/FZR, Lt.No.757-E/83/P14 Dated 03/07/2008.
2) Certified copy of promotion order of Sh. Sukhdev Singh S/o Davinder Singh Head T.T.E. (Grade 5000-8000) and Kuljeet Singh S/o Karnail Singh Head T.T.E. as 5000-8000 Narinder Kumar S/o Yashpal issued by Sr. DPO/FZR."
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2018, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that no reply has been received by the Respondent till date.
The Respondent submitted that the information as sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of three employees/third parties. He further submitted that after following the due process under Section 11 of the RTI Act, the aforesaid third parties have denied parting/divulging the said information to the Appellant. He furthermore submitted that on 26.10.2018, the Appellant was provided a copy of the letters provided by the concerned third parties.Page 2 of 7
CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535 The Appellant interjected to state that he has not received the relevant reply dated 26.10.2018.
At the instance of the Commission as to through what mode the aforesaid reply was sent to the Appellant, the Respondent explained that the aforesaid reply was sent to the Appellant through ordinary post.
Shri Satender Singh, representative of the Appellant stated that the Appellant has sought official information of a public servant and not their personal information; therefore the same should be provided to him. He further stated that the information sought pertaining to Shri Kuljit Singh is required for security purpose only.
The Appellant intervened and stated that the list provided by the APIO cum Asst. Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Firozepor vide letter dated 01.03.2019, sent through speed post was received by him on 05.03.2019. However, he added that the said letter dated 01.03.2019 was incomplete.
A communication has been received by the Commission from APIO cum assistant Personnel Officer vide letter dated 03.03.2021, wherein he has intimated the Appellant that the reply dated 26.10.2018 has already been provided to him and a copy of the same was also resent to the Appellant on 02.03.2021.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the reply dated 26.10.2018 has been sent through ordinary post, which has not been received by the Appellant. In this regard, the Commission counsels the Respondent that the replies/communications under RTI Act must and should be sent through Page 3 of 7 CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535 speed/registered post only. They are being strictly warned that in future they shall ensure that such lapses do not recur.
With regard to the information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI Application, the Commission finds that the Respondent has not provided any information to the Appellant till date. On point no. 2 of the RTI Application, the Commission finds it pivotal to cite observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, wherein the aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. 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) of RTI Act with respect to 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 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:-Page 4 of 7
CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535 '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..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Further, Commission also relies upon the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.
Page 5 of 7CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535 The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...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 confidential access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
[Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the aforementioned cases has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, the Commission upholds the submissions of the Respondent. Notwithstanding the above, the Commission notes that the Appellant has not received any reply on point no. 1 of the RTI Application as well as the reply dated 26.10.2018. Hence, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply on point no. 1 of the RTI Application. He is further directed to re-send the reply dated 26.10.2018 to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of issue of this order through speed/registered post only. A compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within a week thereafter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of.
Page 6 of 7CIC/NRALF/A/2019/105535 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 08.03.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Northern Railway, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur Cantt, Punjab.
2. The Central Public Information Officer, /Senior Divisional Material Manager, Northern Railway, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur Cantt, Punjab
3. Shri Chaman Lal Page 7 of 7