Central Information Commission
Ravi Kant Sinha vs University Of Delhi on 24 June, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UODEL/C/2023/633935 +
Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2023/642280
Ravi Kant Sinha ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Dayal Singh Evening College, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint/appeal:
Complaint & Appeal :
RTI : 06.06.2023 FA : 11.07.2023
11.07.2023 & 30.08.2023
CPIO : 07.07.2023 FAO : 10.08.2023 Hearing : 14.06.2024
Date of Decision: 21.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Provide duly authenticated copy of letter no. 425/P/EC dated 14.09.2022 issued by the Dayal Singh (Evening) College/University of Delhi in respect of acceptance of technical resignation of Shri Gagandeep Singh w.e.f. 14.09.2022(AN).Page 1 of 7
(ii) It is requested to confirm whether Shri Gagandeep Singh has been allowed to retain his lien after 14.09.2022(AN) to the post of Administrative Officer in the Dayal Singh (Evening) College or not. If maintained, please provide the information about the duration of the lien.
(iii) Please also provide the authenticated copy of the relevant document(s). Provide duly authenticated copy of LPC (Last Pay Certificate) which was issued by the Dayal Singh Evening College on relieving of Sri Gagandeep Singh for further joining in JNU on 14.08.2018 on deputation basis.
(iv) Provide duly authenticated copy of LPC (Last Pay Certificate) which was issued by the Dayal Singh Evening College (University of Delhi) on absorption of Sri Gagandeep Singh in JNU on 14.09.2022.
(v) Provide duly authenticated copy of order/notification/letter pertaining to Shri Gagandeep Singh's proforma promotion in the Pay Matrix-11 in the Dayal Singh (Evening) College, if promoted in between the dates from 14.08.2018 to 14.09.2022.
(vi) Prior to joining on 01.06.2011 as Administrative Officer of Dayal Singh (Evening) College, Shri Gagandeep Singh was in Dayal Singh College. It is requested to provide authenticated copy of his (Sri Gagandeep Singh) designation, basic pay, grade pay and pay band at the time of his relieving from Dayal Singh College for further joining in Dayal Singh (Evening) College."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought pertains to third party, the same will not be provided as per RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 11.07.2023 seeking for action against the CPIO for the denial of the information and simultaneously also filed a First Appeal of even date stating inter alia as under:
Page 2 of 7"...The RTI reply was provided by Ms. Purnima Chauhan, PIO, Dayal Singh Evening College's vide letter No. 305/P/EC dated 07.07.2023 which was incomplete/misleading and thereby, concealing the information which is available with the office....
Your kind attention is hereby invited to Section 4(1)(b)(x) among others of the RTI ACT which has made a provision to suo motu disclosure of the following by the concerned public authority:
'the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;' Now, it is submitted that the information sought by the applicant is mostly related to the monthly remuneration received by Shri Gagandeep Singh and such information cannot be declined/deferred on the pretext that the information pertains to third party in view of the provisions of the RTI Act."
4. The FAA vide order dated 10.08.2023 observed that the third party was asked for his consent for the disclosure of the information, to which the following was replied to by the third party:
"It seems there is no public interest in revealing my personal information and same may not be supplied to the RTI Applicant."
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.08.2023.
6. The Complainant/Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Asstt. Prof. Promila Dharam, PIO along with Dr. Jnanendra N Singh, then CPIO attended the hearing in person.
7. The Complainant/Appellant argued on the lines of the First Appeal grounds as mentioned above and emphasized that whatever he has sought for relates to the monthly remuneration of an employee and the system of compensation which cannot be denied as per the suo motu mandate of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act. He further relied on a Page 3 of 7 judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in W.P (C) 23965/2022 in the matter of A S Mallkarjunaswamy vs. SIC to argue that access to the service particulars of other/fellow employees in the same organization is permissible to pursue legal disputed relating to seniority or promotion. Lastly, he insisted on penalty to be imposed on the CPIO for the wrong denial of the information.
8. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and further submitted that, nonetheless, they have placed on the record of the Commission the available information at this stage and if directed upon, the same can be provided to the Appellant.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO was appropriate in principle, however the CPIO erred in not quoting the applicable exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, as regards the contentions of the Appellant, the Commission draws the attention of the Appellant 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 & amp; 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 Page 4 of 7 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..."
10. Further, on the aspect of larger public interest, the Commission places reliance on a catena of judgments of the superior Courts on the import of "public interest" as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] observed as under:
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person Page 5 of 7 with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. P. Gupta v President of India, [AIR 1982 SC 149], with reference to 'public interest' it has been maintained that:
"Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, 'diffused' rights and interests vindicate public interest... [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." Emphasis Supplied And, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied Since there is no material on record to ascribe larger public interest in the disclosure of the information related to the averred third party in any of the above referred contexts, the denial of the information by the CPIO & FAA stands endorsed.
11. Adverting to the foregoing findings, the Commission is unable to appreciate the reliance placed by the Appellant on the A S Mallkarjunaswamy vs. SIC case law. However, in view of the Appellant's contention relying upon Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to intimate in writing to the appellant only the monthly remuneration that was being paid to the averred third party for the time period/instance referred to at points 3, 4 & 6 of the RTI Application without providing any copies of pay certificate etc. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Page 6 of 712. Furthermore, the Commission finds no scope of any action to be taken against the CPIO in the Complaint case as the CPIO has not committed any deliberate obstruction of information or denied the information with a malafide intention.
13. The Appeal & Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 21.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Dayal Singh Evening College, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, University Of Delhi, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2. Ravi Kant Sinha Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)