Anand Rathi vs Department Of Posts on 25 May, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anand Rathi vs Department Of Posts on 25 May, 2022

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/117648

Anand Rathi                                        ......अपीलकता /Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम

CPIO,
Department of Posts, O/o the
Supdt. of Post offices, RTI Cell,
Sonipat Division, Sonipat - 131001,
Haryana.                                           .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                   :   02/05/2022
Date of Decision                  :   24/05/2022

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   23/11/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   16/12/2020
First appeal filed on             :   31/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order   :   25/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   17/04/2021

Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2020 seeking the following information regarding the total recovery amount by the Postal Division, Sonipat:

"The amount of recovery recovered/imposed or credited in r/o officials mentioned below by Supdt. Post Offices Sonepat who is also functioning as CPIO in this case.

1.Sh. Amit Kumar, System Manager, Sonepat HO

2.Sh. Kuldeep Singh, System Manager, Sonepat HO

3.Sh. Ankit Kumar, the then System Manager Sonepat HO

4.Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Retd. Postmaster Sonepat.

5.Sh. Rajinder Singh Chauhana, the then SBCO Supervisor, Sonepat

6.Smt. Promila Khana PA Sonepat.

7.Sh. Jagdish Chander Ex SPM, K.G. Khanpur,

8.Smt. Raj Bala SPM/PA Gohana

9.Smt. Darshana Kaushik S.P.M. H.B. Colony, Post Office, Sonepat.

10. Sh. Sunil Kumar SPM Jakhauli

11. Smt. Anita Sharma PA Sonepat HO

12. Sh. Ashok Rathi SPM Ganaur Mandi

13. Sh. N.K. Jain SPM Purkhas

14. Sh. Nafe Singh SPM Kundli

15. Sh. Devinder Tyagi SPM Juan

16. Smt. Swarn Kaur Ex SPM Murthal

17. Sh. Jatinder Kumar BPM Badi Kutabpur

18. Smt. Savita BPM Gumar

19. Sh. Joginder Singh BPM Bari

20. Sh. Pawan Kumar GDS Panchi Gujran

21. Sh. Sukhbir Singh Postmaster Sonepat.

22. -Sh. D. V. Saini Supdt. Post Offices, Sonepat."

The CPIO denied information to the appellant on 16.12.2020 under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.12.2020. FAA's order dated 25.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Represented by D. R. Wadhwa present through video-conference.

Respondent: Ram Niwas Katariya, ASPO & Rep. of CPIO present through video- conference.

The Rep. of the Appellant while narrating the factual background of the case regarding implication of the Appellant as a principal offender in a fraud case along with the averred third -party officials expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO. In response to it, the Commission apprised the Rep. of Appellant that disciplinary related records of other officials as sought by the Appellant stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In response to it, the Rep. of Appellant contested the inaction of the CPIO in divulging the personal information to other persons/applicants ignoring this concept of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

The Rep. of CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 28.04.2022, relevant portion of which is as under -

1. "Sh. Anand Rathi is Principal Offender in Ganaur City Post OfficeFraud case. He committed the fraud amounting to Rs. 12441298/-

2. When the fraud came to light on 07.10.2016, the appellant remained unauthorized absent from duty and produces a false medical certificate.

When the matter was sent for inquiry, Dr. R.K. Gupta (BM Gipta Hospital Pvt. Ltd) intimated vide his report dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure -- A) that the medical certificate presented by Mr. Anand Rathee are neither issued nor signed by him. The certificates are patently forged.

3. The FIR no. 251/2017 has already been lodged against him in Ganaur Police Station and the interim bail has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana Court on 03.12.2021. The appellant is still absconding from the police custody and the local police is trying to arrest him.

4. The charge sheet under rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 dated 25.02.2019 has already been issued to the applicant. The applicant is not cooperating the departmental inquiry and, habitual to levelling the false allegation on the departmental officials/ officers. Even he join the departmental inquiry sometimes become absent. Notices were also sent by the department (Annexure -- B) but the same were received undelivered with the remark "Refused".

5. Many aspects in this fraud case are pending i.e. recovery, court case and disciplinary action against principal offender and subsidiary offenders. Total defrauded amounting of Rs. 12441298/- has come to notice till date. That's why the information could not be supplied to the applicant.

6. Three RTI applicant were filed by the appellant on 23.11.2020. In First application the information sought by the appellant regarding misappropriated accounts. In second application the information sought by the appellant regarding accounts which are mentioned in FIR No. 251 dated 11.05.017. In third application the information sought by the appellant regarding recovery imposed on the officials in Ganaur City Fraud case. The investigation of this fraud case was pending and the court case is also under trial. That's why the information could not be supplied to the applicant. The applicant was also informed vide this office letter dated 16.12.2020 that information can. not be supplied under section 8.1.(h) of RTI Act 2005.

7. After that the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. After gone through the appeal of the appellant vis-a-vis to the facts and related records of the case dispassionately and observations thereon, the First Appellate Authority was also satisfied with the reply of CPIO as the information sought by the appellant will impede the process of investigation and the appeal of was disposed off accordingly by the First Appellate Authority."

Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of records and in furtherance of hearing proceedings that the records of other officials regarding recovery of penalty amount as sought by the Appellant contains elements of personal information of third parties which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that extent denial of information by the CPIO is apt however the same should have denied under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in place of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the 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 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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. The following was thus held:

"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 4 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 conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

In furtherance of aforesaid observations, the issue raised by the Rep. of Appellant regarding disclosure of Appellant's personal information to other officers by the CPIO is rendered inconsequential.

Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission