Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 13 February, 2023

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 13 February, 2023

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/CBECE/A/2022/134272
             CIC/DOREV/A/2022/134275
             CIC/CBECE/A/2022/136909

   Vinod Kumar Sharma                                          ......अपीलकता /Appellant

                                             VERSUS
                                              बनाम
   CPIO,
1. O/o COMMISSIONER OF CGST,
   GHAZIABAD, RTI CELL, C.G.O
   COMPLEX-II, KAMLA NEHRU
   NAGAR, GHAZIABAD-201002, U.P.

   CPIO,
2. O/o The Commissioner, Central Tax
   Audit Commissionerate, RTI Cell, Noida,
   A-17, Discovery Tower, 1St Floor,
   Sec-62, Noida - 201301, U.P.                       .... ितवादीगण /Respondent (s)

   Date of Hearing                      :    10/02/2023
   Date of Decision                     :    10/02/2023

   INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                 Saroj Punhani

   Note -The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
   as these are based on similar RTI Applications.

   Relevant facts emerging from appeal (s):

   RTI application(s) filed on              :23/02/2022 & 12/02/2022
   CPIO replied/ ies on                     :25/03/2022, 16/03/2022 & 22/03/2022
   First appeal(s) filed on                 :27/04/2022, 22/04/2022
                                                1
 First Appellate Authority order(s) :17/05/2022, 18/05/2022
2nd Appeal (s)/Complaint dated :19/07/2022

                                 CIC/CBECE/A/2022/134272

Information sought

An RTI application dated 23.02.2022 was filed by Heerendra Kant Sharma with Respondent no. 1 seeking the following information:

(2) (A) Date and designation at the time of entry of Sh. Yogendra Kumar Supdt Retd. From Stat Tech Branch) as also date of Promotion in Supdt. (along with Estt Order) in the Department. Copy of his all-Promotion Orders in all the grades of Steno., lnspector and Superintendent;

(3) (a) All Pay fixation Orders since joining of said Sh Yogendra Kumar, in the deptt. till date

(b) payment details / calculation sheet of arrears, given to both of them on grant of RS.5400/-.

(4) Copy of each Order issued for grant of ACP / MACP/.NFSG/up gradation in all the grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- to said Sh. Yogendra Kumar, Supdt.Retd on 31-10-2021.

The CPIO/Respondent no. 1 furnished a reply to Heerendra Kant Sharma on 25.03.2022 and denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 17.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

t CIC/DOREV/A/2022/134275 Information sought:

An RTI application dated 12.02.2022 was filed by Heerendra Kant Sharma with Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:

2. (A) Date and designation at the time of entry of Sh. H D KANDPAL Supdt Retd AND as also date of Promotion in SUPDT. (along with Estt Order) in the Department. Copy of his all Appointment and Promotion Orders in all the grades of UDC,TA,STA, Inspector and Superintendent;

(3) (a) All Pay fixation Orders since joining of said Sh. Kandpal , in the deptt. till the date of his retirement

(b) payment details of retirement benefits, calculation sheet of pension and gratuity, given on retirement of said Sh Kandpal and (C) Copy of PPO and Payment Advice issued in respect of 5h H D Kandpal.

(4) Copy of each Order issued for grant of ACP / MACP/.NFSG/up gradation in all the grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- to said Sh. H D Kandpal, Supdt.Retd.

The CPIO/Respondent no. 2 furnished a reply to Heerendra Kant Sharma on 25.03.202 and denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/CBECE/A/2022/136909 Information sought:

An RTI application dated 23.02.2022 was filed by Heerendra Kant Sharma with Respondent no. 2 seeking the following information:

2. (A) Date and designation at the time of entry of Sh. P K Moitra Supdt AND Sh.

Raj Kumar Sharma lnspr/Supdt. as also date of Promotion in SUPDT. (along with Estt Order) in the Department. Copy of the all Appointment and Promotion Orders in all the grades of UDC/Steno., TA, STA, Inspector and Superintendent;

(3) (a) All Pay fixation Orders since joining of said Sh Moitra and Rai Kumar Sharma, in the deptt. till date

(b) payment details / calculation sheet of arrears, given to both of them.

(4) Copy of each Order issued for grant of ACP / MACP/.NFSG/up gradation in all the grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- to said Sh. P K Moitra, and Raj Kumar Sharma, Supdt.Retd.

The CPIO furnished a reply to Heerendra Kant Sharma on 22.03.2022 and denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 18.05.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal (s) on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.

Respondent no. 1: Dilip Kumar Thakur, Asst. Commissioner & CPIO present through intra-video conference.

Respondent no. 2: Praveen Srivastava, Asst. Commissioner & CPIO present through audio-conference.

At the outset, the Commission counselled the Appellant that the instant Appeals are not maintainable as the original RTI Applications were filed by another person i.e. Heerendra Kant Sharma and the instant Appeals were put forth by him. In response to it, the Appellant explained that he was not physically fit therefore, the RTI Applications were submitted by his cousin on his behalf seeking the desired information; however he is aggrieved by the fact that records of concerned third party who are his fellow colleagues have not been furnished to him till date.

The Respondents reiterated the denial of information.

Decision:

In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the instant Appeals are not maintainable as these are based on defective RTI Applications. The RTI Applications under reference have been filed and signed by Heerendra Kant Sharma without any authorization letter by the Appellant in his favour, while the First Appeals/ instant Second Appeals have been filed by the Appellant which are not as per the provision of RTI Act.

In this regard, it may be noted that Section 3 of the RTI Act provides for that "subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.

Also, Section 6(1) of RTI Act says "A person" to seek information and not two different persons. Section 6(1) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder for reference:

"6. Request for obtaining information--(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to--...."

Even otherwise, considering efflux of time, if liberal view is accorded in the matter, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the Appellant has sought service related records of averred third party officers which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that extent denial of information by the CPIOs' is in the spirit of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."

In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 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..."

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

The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission