Central Information Commission
Mrm Susil Kumar vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 15 January, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000191
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15th January 2015
Date of decision : 15th January 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri M. Susil Kumar,
S/o Shri Marappan, Post Box NO. 658,
Haddo Post, Port Blair 744 102
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Office of Deputy Commissioner, South
Andaman District office of Assistant Director (Admn) & APIO, South Andaman District, Port Blair The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Subhash Chandra, ADM was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 21.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding service matters of Shri Ajay Mondal, Revenue Inspector. The CPIO responded on 26.6.2013. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 28.6.2013. Not having heard from the FAA, he filed second appeal dated 26.12.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 15.1.2014.
2. The Respondents submitted that a response was sent to the Appellant by the CPIO on 26.6.2013 and information available on record was provided, except the personal information relating to movable / immovable properties exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made before us by the Respondents. We note that the Appellant sought information regarding the service matters of an employee of the Respondents, like details of movable / immovable assets, copy of the DPC proceedings etc. without citing any larger public interest. The Appellant was not present to plead his case, in spite of a written notice having been sent to him. In this context, we note the following observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.: "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 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." We also reproduce below the views of the High Court of Delhi in the case of THDC India Ltd. Vs. R. K. Raturi decided on 8.7.2014 in regard to disclosure of DPC proceedings of other employees: "This Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information."
4. In view of the foregoing, we see no ground to interfere with the reply of the Respondents in this case.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar