Central Information Commission
Farah Deeba vs National Cadet Corps (Ncc) on 20 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/NCCOR/A/2018/144799
In the matter of:
Major Farah Deeba ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
NCC Group HQ, Chantham Lines,
Allahabad 211002 ... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/03/2018 CPIO replied on : 17/04/2018 First appeal filed on : 20/04/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 25/05/2018 Second Appeal dated : 25/06/2018 Date of Hearing : 15/10/2020 Date of Decision : 15/10/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Brig. S K Singh, Gp. Cdr & CPIO present through video conference. Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. The details of Combined Annual Training Camps (CATC) organised by various units under the jurisdiction of NCC Group Headquarters, Allahabad in 2017.
2. The names of Camp Commandants and Deputy Camp Commandants of the CATC conducted.1
3. The leave details of Camp Commandants and Deputy Camp Commandants of the CATC conducted, if the leave was availed during the duration of the camp.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information on paras 3(b) to 3(j) of the RTI Application.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that she has been subjected to immense mental agony and in this regard, she levelled serious allegations of misconduct and abetting sexual harassment on the part of Brig. V K Chhatre, the then Group Commander to whom she reported the misdemeanour of the officer who perpetrated the alleged act of harassment. She claimed that she reported certain irregularities in the accounts of the Camp account manual of the Combined Annual Training Camps, where she was posted as the Dy. Camp Commandant for audit but was not allowed to operate the accounts by the Camp Commandant and yet she was forced to sign the accounts by Brig. V K Chhatre, the then Group Commander who also happened to be the then CPIO in the instant case. She further submitted that at her behest, a Court of Inquiry was convened for inquiring in the matter of the financial irregularities and simultaneously she also took up the case of sexual harassment with the concerned committee. She further remarked at the irony of the situation she was faced with as the same officers against whom she had complained were heading these respective inquiries, which is why she claimed that both the inquiries were carried out ex-parte and none of her contentions were recorded in the convening order. She furthermore stated that since the Court of Inquiry found her guilty on certain terms, she filed the instant RTI Application to seek the details of the accounts of similar CATC(s) held in the past in order to challenge the decision of the Court of Inquiry. That, subsequently she pursued the case with the appropriate Court of Law (Hon'ble Allahabad High Court), where, the matter is sub judice as on date.
The CPIO submitted that he is not a party to the subject matter of the instant case as his predecessor was the responding CPIO. He further submitted that prior to the hearing he tried to find out from the clerical staff regarding the background in which the averred reply was provided on 17.04.2018, particularly the calculation of fees arrived at by the then CPIO for providing the 2 copy of documents. Furthermore, he submitted that he has gathered from the clerical staff that perhaps there was no basis for arriving at the averred calculation of the fees and it was based on some verbal understating of the rule position. Lastly, he expressed his willingness to provide due assistance to the Appellant for accessing the available information as sought for in the RTI Application.
Observations:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on the record as well as the submissions of the Appellant during the hearing that her narrative regarding the alleged harassment meted out to her or the allegations of financial irregularities are both outside the purview of the RTI Act. In other words, the Commission cannot comment on the merits of any of her allegations within the confines of the RTI Act, moreover the relevant case on alleged financial irregularities is sub judice. However, the limited scope of adjudication in the matter is with respect to the access of the information sought for and in this regard the following is observed:
For paras 3(b),(d) & (e) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has provided a cryptic reply stating that the 'information is not compiled' and can be accessed upon the payment of fees. Subsequently, in the same reply the CPIO has worked out some arbitrary calculation of fees showing components like 'cost of clerical work'; 'cost of computer print-out'- while there is no such provision in Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012 for imposing costs for 'clerical work' nor is there any differentiation made between normal print-out or computer print-out- it is either A3 or A4 page (Rs. 2 per page) or large size page (actual cost). The FAA has also mindlessly reiterated the then CPIO's reply for the said paras.
For para 3(j) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has invoked Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without any application of mind, however, the FAA has later, rightly so, held the information sought to be outside Section 2(f) as the Appellant has sought for the interpretation and clarification of the CPIO based on an interrogative and futuristic query.
For para 3(c) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has not invoked the appropriate exemption clause for denying the information sought for therein. The said para seeks the leave details of other employees which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. This observation is in line with 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 3 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..."
For paras 3(f) to (i) of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has provided some information, however, the Commission will not go into their merits as rightly held by the FAA that these paras are not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Decision:
In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of Brig. V K Chhatre, the then CPIO & Group Commander in having obstructed the provision of the information on paras 3(b),(d) & (e) of the RTI Application. The then CPIO has sought for additional fees to be provided for the said information based on his own terms of calculation which is in complete violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules. The submissions of the present CPIO during the hearing further reinforces the observations of the Commission that the fee was sought without referring to the RTI Rules, 2012 and without any authority whatsoever..The Commission directs the present CPIO to serve a copy of this order to Brig. V K Chhatre, the then CPIO at his present address for him to take note of the Commission's admonition on the above terms. A copy of the service of the order shall be endorsed to the Commission.
Further, the present CPIO is directed to provide an adequate opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records for the information sought at 4 paras 3(b), (d) & (e) of the RTI Application to the Appellant at a mutually decided date & time. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO and a copy of the documents, as desired by the Appellant during the inspection will be provided to her free of cost. The said directions should be complied with within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO stipulating the details of the inspection provided and copy of the documents provided thereof.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date Copy to be served through the present CPIO to:
Brig. V K Chhatre Then CPIO & Group Commander NCC Group HQ, Chantham Lines Allahabad - 211002
--(For taking note of the severe admonition of the Commission) 5