Central Information Commission
R K Agrawal vs Cbi on 5 January, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/170318
R. K. Agrawal ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
5-B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/01/2021
Date of Decision : 04/01/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/12/2017
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 15/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 12/11/2018
2nd Appeal/Complaint received : 30/11/2018
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 18 points relating to illegal closure of a Regular Case registered against O.P. Parida, the then ASP, IPCC, CBI, New Delhi, his promotion from the post of ASP in CBI to SP CBI, non-compliance of various circulars issued by CBI regarding conversion of PE into RC, visit of O.P. Parida to various other countries without the permission of the Competent Authority and regarding nonconsideration of his name for promotion on at par basis, non observation of guidelines issued vide No. 42510412012-AVD-IV (A) dated 1 29.11.2012 and non completion of the inquiry which is pending against him for more than 8 years without any progress.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Mukesh Verma, Deputy SP & Rep. of CPIO, CBI present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that O.P.Parida, the then ASP IPCC, CBI New Delhi was promoted when the closure report was yet to be decided/accepted by the concerned Special Court and further the closure report was still pending in the Court for acceptance at the time of issue of his promotion order and that the closure report was accepted on 07.12.2015 i.e. after 1 year and 7 months from the date of his promotion i.e. 07.05.2014. He further submitted that as per rule, no officer can be promoted, if departmental proceedings are pending or being contemplated against an officer or closure report filed in the Court is yet to be accepted or criminal proceedings are pending in the Court of Law. He furthermore alleged that all rules and relevant DoPT circulars were violated in the case of O.P Parida and it is in this context that he has sought for the averred information. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the manner in which his RTI Application has been dealt with as no reply was provided to it by the CPIO, while the FAA disposed of his First Appeal by denying the information sought for under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO expressed his regret for the failure on their part to provide a reply to the RTI Application and further stated that the FAA has provided the relevant inputs on the RTI Application.
DECISION At the outset, the Commission expresses severe displeasure over the fact that no reply was provided to the instant RTI Application by the CPIO. However, considering the findings of the FAA in his order stating that the RTI Application was not put up before the CPIO by the dealing hand and action in this regard has 2 been initiated against the dealing hand, the Commission upholds the order of the FAA to this extent.
Similarly, as regards the information sought for in the RTI Application, the FAA has rightly held that the Appellant has merely mentioned his concerns therein emanating from certain perceived grievances while also denying the information sought for under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The said 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 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..."
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it is pertinent to note that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for certain clarifications and interpretation by the CPIO. That Appellant may note certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act as under:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] held as under:3
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
4"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents,memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts,reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Upon a conjoint reading of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहा न) सूचना आयु त) Information Commissioner (सू 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date R.K. Agrawal 6