Central Information Commission
K. Balu vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 13 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BHELD/A/2020/670170
Mr. K. Balu ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
Boiler Auxiliaries Plant, Indira
Gandhi Industrial Complex, Ranipet
Vellore, Tamil Nadu-632406
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 25-05-2019 FA : 16-07-2019 SA : 12-05-2020
CPIO : 13-07-2019 FAO : Not on Records Hearing: 09-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Vellore, Tamil Nadu. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
1) Provide me a copy of inter unit transfer order issued to Mr K Stalin Staff Number 4151828 transferring him from BHEL -Ranipet Unit to BHEL-Jhansi Unit.
2) Provide me the copy of joining order issued to Mr K Stalin by BHEL-Jhansi Unit.
3) Provide me the copy of relieving order issued by BHEL-Ranipet Unit.
4) Provide me copy of documents such as note relevant to the inter unit transfer order issued to Mr K Stalin Page 1 of 6
5) Name and designation of the transfer authority for the inter-unit transfer order issued to Mr Stalin.
6) Copy of vacancy notification/requirement issued by BHEL-Jhansi Unit so as to accommodate Mr K Stalin
7) Copy transfer rule applicable to this inter-unit transfer
8) Copy inter unit transfer request if any given by Mr K Stalin.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 13-07-2019 had denied the information sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 16-07-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO order is not placed on records. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri T S Balaji, CPIO/Deputy General Manager attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 02.12.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 25.05.2019. He further submitted that he has received a copy of written submission dated 02.12.2021. He has raised an issue w.r.t the information sought at point nos. 4 & 5 of the RTI Application.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 13.07.2019, they have denied the requested information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, upon receipt of the orders of the concerned FAA, the respondent has re-examined each query separately and a point-wise reply has already been provided to the appellant vide their written submission/ letter dated 02.12.2021. He further submitted that the information sought at point no. 4 of the RTI Application cannot be provided being third party personal information and there is no relation with any public activity in disclosing such information. That a copy of the transfer rule has already been provided to the appellant as sought at point no. 7 of the RTI Application which can be read and examined by the Page 2 of 6 appellant in terms of the information sought at point no. 5 of the RTI Application.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought copy of inter unit transfer order issued to Mr K Stalin Staff Number 4151828 transferring him from BHEL -Ranipet Unit to BHEL-Jhansi Unit and other related queries. That the appellant is aggrieved with the reply provided to point nos. 4 & 5 of the RTI Application. That the appellant is seeking note relevant to the inter unit transfer order issued to Mr. K Stalin at point no. 4 of his RTI Application i.e. an office noting related to an employee which is a third party personal information and the disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Hence the information sought in the said point has rightly been rejected under section 8 (l) (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held 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
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
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, 5 it may not be necessary to re-
examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
Page 3 of 614) 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."
Further in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......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 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 of 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."
14. 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.
9. Moreover, as far as information sought at point no. 5 of the RTI Application is concerned, the appellant is seeking name and designation of the transfer authority for the inter-unit transfer order issued to Mr.Stalin in the said point and the respondent has already provided extract from personnel manual Page 4 of 6 consisting transfer rule applicable to this inter-unit transfer to the appellant vide their letter dated 02.12.2021. That the said copy of transfer rule can further be read and interpreted/ examined by the appellant himself as the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret/examine information and provide to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
10. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.
The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
11. In view of the above matrix, the Commission is of the opinion that an adequate reply along with relevant documents has already been provided by the respondent vide their written submission dated 02.12.2021 and the same is acknowledged by the appellant as well. That the said written submission dated Page 5 of 6 02.12.2021 provided by the respondent is taken on record and same is treated as a revised reply to the instant RTI Application which is found to be satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission.
12. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
13. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
14. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 09-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
Boiler Auxiliaries Plant,
Indira Gandhi Industrial Complex,
Ranipet Vellore, Tamil Nadu-632406
2. Mr. K. Balu
Page 6 of 6