Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar vs Eastern Railway (Kolkata) on 26 August, 2020
CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296
In the matter of:
Rajesh Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Cum Divisional Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway,
Howrah Division,
PO & Distt. Howrah,
West Bengal
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.07.2018 FA : 20.08.2018 SA : 30.10.2018
CPIO : 03.09.2018 FAO : 18.09.2018 Hearing :21.08.2020
Page 1 of 11
CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Respondent: Smt. Pallavi Goswami, Sr. DPO, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division,
PO & Distt. Howrah, West Bengal, heard over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 18.07.2018, seeking information on four points pertaining to OED posted Staff under Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, including, inter-alia;
1. Please furnish the complete details of all the present OED posted Staff under Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), Eastern Railway, Howrah Division.
(a) Please furnish complete name.
(b) At present posting station of the OED Staff.
(c) At present outstation OED Staff Station wise.
2. Please furnish the at present the sanctioned post and the vacant post of the OED Staff under Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (General), Eastern Railway, Howrah Division.
3. Please refer your office Letter No. E/2/Elect/l/OED. Howrah dated 13.08.2015 of Eastern Railway, issued by B.K. Dutta-APO(3) for Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/Howrah and furnish the following information in this regard;
Page 2 of 11CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296
(a) Please furnish the certified copy of the Test.
(b) Please furnish the certified copy of the Reserved List.
(c) Please furnish the certified copy of the final list.
(d) Please furnish information whether the appointment in OED were made on the basis of Seniority as per joining date of the candidates or from the last posted date of the candidates department.
(e) Please refer the point vide (a), (b),(c) & (d) above and furnish the certified copy of any rule or any standing order of the Indian Railway or the Railway Board.
4. Please refer your office Letter No. E/2/Elect/l/OED. Howrah dated 13.08.2015 of Eastern Railway, issued by B.K. Dutta. APO (3) for Sr. Divl. Personnel Officer/Howrah and furnish the following information in this regard;
(a) Please furnish the certified copy of any rule or any standing order of the Indian Railway or the Railway Board which guides the provision of deciding if a Staff of Helper-II is senior to the Staff of Helper - I after the merger of the both the posts then on what basis Senior Staff of Helper-II was not considered for selection as an OED Staff as per his (Helper-II) option and candidature of Seniority over the Helper-I. The CPIO, vide letter dated 03.09.2018, provided point wise information to the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.08.2018. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Page 3 of 11CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory and misleading information provided by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to take penal action against the concerned CPIO.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that due information has not been provided to him by the respondent on point nos. 3 and 4 of his RTI application in question. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
The respondent submitted that the appellant, vide point nos. 3(a), (b) and (c), has sought copies of the test, reserved list and final list of various candidates who appeared in the exam conducted in reference to the letter dated 13.08.2015. Since the sought information relates to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party, hence, the disclosure of information sought was denied as per the provisions of the RTI Act. She further submitted that an appropriate reply, as available on record, was furnished to the appellant on point nos. 3(d) and (e), and point no. 4. In response to a query, the respondent submitted that the result declared is available in public domain and the same has been made available to the appellant.
The appellant contested that the result provided by the respondent is not with respect to the exam conducted in reference to the letter dated 13.08.2015. Further, the copies of the rules/circulars, as sought vide point nos. 3(e) and 4, have not been Page 4 of 11 CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 furnished by the respondent. In its reply, the respondent submitted that the said circulars are available in public domain.
The respondent, relying on her written submissions dated 18.08.2020, submitted that the appellant has been filing numerous RTI applications pertaining to his service matters. In view of settling his varied grievances, the appellant had been invited for discussion by the FAA vide letter dated 18.09.2018. However, the appellant chose not to avail the said opportunity.
The written submissions dated 18.08.2020, filed by the respondent were, taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, refers to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, wherein the aspect of "personal information" has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. 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 Page 5 of 11 CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. 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 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.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-
'12. 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 organisation 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 Page 6 of 11 CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.'
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..."Page 7 of 11
CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 Further, Commission also relies upon the recent judgment of 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. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...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 confidential access is available when stipulation of larger public In the light of the above noted judgments, the Commission observes that the information sought vide point no. 3(a) relates to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, the disclosure of information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, with respect to the information sought vide point no. 3(b) and (c), the Commission directs the respondent to furnish requisite information, after redacting information which relates to the personal information of third parties, the Page 8 of 11 CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties.
The Commission, further, directs the respondent to furnish a copy of the relevant rules/circulars, as sought vide point nos. 3(e) and 4, to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission, further, notes that the appellant has been filing numerous RTI applications pertaining to his service matters and has also been invited for discussion by the FAA in order to settle his grievances. However, the appellant chose not to avail the said opportunity. Furthermore, the Hon'ble CIC has, in its earlier orders, taken cognizance of the fact that the public resources are being misutilised by the appellant and his associate Shri Sushil Kumar. Nevertheless, the appellant, rather than adopting a more sensitive and proactive approach to discuss his incessant issues with the concerned public authority, has not refrained himself from filing RTI applications. In this regard, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajni Maindiratta vs. Director of Education (W.P. (C) No. 7911 of 2015) dated 08.10.2015 wherein it was observed as under:
"8. Even otherwise, this is a rare instance where the Authority constituted under the RTI Act to oversee the working and implementation of the said Act, namely the CIC, has itself found a person to be abusing the process of the RTI and the machinery created thereunder. The petitioner has not controverted, the factual aspect of making a number of RTI queries and preferring as many as 20 appeals to the CIC. Similarly, the petitioner has Page 9 of 11 CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 not been able to explain the reason, for which the information spanning over several decades, was sought. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto."
In view of the above noted ratio and considering the facts of the case, the Commission advises the appellant to visit the respondent's office on a mutually decided date and time, and discuss all pending grievances/issues with the competent authority.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमतापांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date: 21.08.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 10 of 11 CIC/ERAIL/A/2018/165296 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) cum ADRM (Admn.), Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, PO & Distt. Howrah, West Bengal -711101
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Cum Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Howrah Division, PO & Distt. Howrah, West Bengal-711101
3. Shri Rajesh Kumar Page 11 of 11