Central Information Commission
Kamlesh Sharma vs North Western Railway on 26 November, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NWRLY/A/2018/120487
Kamlesh Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o Railways, North ... ितवादी/Respondent
Western Railway, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI :11-08-2017 FA :11-12-2017 SA: 02-04-2018
CPIO : 30-11-2017 FAO : 02-01-2018 Hearing: 22-11-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, North Western Railway, Jaipur seeking departmental proceedings, transfer and promotion related information of Mr. Amarchand Sharma, Head Constable.
2. The CPIO responded on 30-11-2017. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 11-12-2017 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 02-01- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Kamlesh Sharma attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. Ghanshyam Meena, ASC participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
Page 1 of 44. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the sought for information.
5. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is a third party information exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and there is no involvement of any public interest in the matter. Decision:
6. This Commission observed that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the matter and hence, details of the departmental proceedings initiated against Mr. Amarchand Sharma cannot be shared with the appellant, as it is a matter between employer and employee covered by the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"13. 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."
7. Further, this Commission is of the opinion that the transfer and promotion details of Mr. Amarchand Sharma cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of the legal principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court India in its judgment dated 31.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 titled as Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam & Anr., wherein it was observed as under:-
"5. ...This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc.
12. In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 Page 2 of 4 and R. K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.
15. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.
16. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected."
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 22-11-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/o Railways, Sr. DFM & Nodal PIO,
North Western Railway,
RTI Cell, DRM'S Office, Jaipur, Division, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302006
2. Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Page 4 of 4