Intekhab Azad vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 2 July, 2019

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Intekhab Azad vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 2 July, 2019

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/NRALF/A/2017/176198

Intekhab Azad                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम



CPIO, M/o. Railways, Northern                                ... ितवादी/Respondent
Railway, Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur, Punjab.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 22-08-2017             FA    : 07-10-2017           SA: 15-11-2017

CPIO : 14-06-2019            FAO : Not on record.         Hearing: 28-06-2019

                                    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, Northern Railway, Ferozepur seeking appointment details of one Mr. Anuj Kumar, an employee of Railway Workshop, Ludhiana.

2. The CPIO responded on 14-06-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 07-10-2017 requesting that now the information should be provided to him. As the first appellate authority did not give him any reply, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Page 1 of 4

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Intekhab Azad was not present despite notice. Mr. Vijendra Kumar, APO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The respondent stated that they had not received the RTI application prior to the hearing notice and therefore, there is delay in sending the reply. Further, he stated that they have already sent a copy of the reply dated 14-08-2017 of the Diesel Shed, Ludhiana to the appellant on 14-06-2019 thereby indicating that the information sought by the appellant is a third party information exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and there is no involvement of any public interest in the matter. The given reply was also read out by the respondent. Decision:

5. This Commission observed that the appointment details of Mr. Anuj Kumar which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of the order dated 31.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court India 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 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 Page 2 of 4 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."

6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

7. 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 28-06-2019
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. DMM & Nodal CPIO,
      Northern Railway, DRM'S Office,
      Ferozpur Division, Ferozpur,
      Punjab- 152001


   2. Intekhab Azad




                                             Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission