Central Information Commission
Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi vs Central Vigilance Commission on 7 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/C/2019/650183
Prashant Kumar Vidyarthi ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkata Bhawan, GPO
Complex, Block A, INA, New Delhi - 110023. .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/06/2021
Date of Decision : 07/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07/06/2019
CPIO replied on : 04/07/2019
First appeal filed on : 16/07/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 05/08/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 06/09/2019
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application on 07.06.2019 seeking information on following points related to "Allegation of Corruption on a Government Servant, including inter-alia;
"1. Provide the copy of said complaint dated 22.01.2018, as complainant's name has been wrongly used by someone with had intention. Inform the 1 action taken on this with relevant note portion and correspondence in this regard.
2. Whether the named individual Shri Rajeev Bharadwaj is a employee of CVC, if yes, provide the probable action which may be taken against him for leakage of information OR if not, clarify how come one outside individual has access to internal CVC notings.
3. Provide a copy of communication sent by Dr, Bindu Dey requesting an investigation in the alleged complaint dated 22.01.2018. Also provide action taken on this with relevant note portion.
4. Provide copy of complaints dated 08.05.2018, 10.05.2018 and 14.05.2018 made by Shri Harish Kumar against Dr. Bindu Dey, Secretary. TDB as mentioned in DST's letter dated 28.09.2018.
5. Provide copy/ies of communication between CVO, DST and CVC on above three complaints.
6. Provide copy of report of the committee dated 31.08.2018 and final report dated 17.09.2018 as mentioned in DST's letter dated 28.09.2018.
7. Provide the details of action on report of committee with relevant note portion.
8. Provide copy of tentative agreement by Hon.ble Minister for S&T and ES on findings of the alleged above three complaints."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 04.07.2019 stating as follows:-
"2. From the records, no letters or complaints have been received from complainant. Further, the information sought by complainant related to complaints made by Shri Harish Kumar and the communication between CVC & DST is in the form of information pertaining to third party information and personal nature. As per the Order dated 03.10.2012, in SLP(C ) No. 27734 of 2012 (in the matter of Girish R Despande Vs. CIC & others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the details about the disciplinary proceedings against an employee are in the nature of personal information and are exempt from disclosure under subsection 1(j) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence cannot be disclosed. Therefore, the desired information is denied."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2019. FAA's order dated 05.08.2019 advise the CPIO as follows:-
2"........ advice the CPIO concerned, that is, Shri Kundan Singh, Director, to re- visit the Appellant's RTI Application dated 06.06.2019 and provide an appropriate para-wise reply to the Appellant regarding the information sought for, based on available records, within 15 days of the receipt of these orders, keeping in view the various provisions of RTI Act, including Section 8, 10 and 11 thereof. Keeping in view the provisions contained under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, the documents, if any, be provided to the Appellant, free of charge.
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a revised point-wise reply to the Complainant on 30.08.2019 stating as under:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the denial of the information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint seeking action against the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Ms. Chhaya Sharma, Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information as being third party since he is the affected party by virtue of the fact that his name was used in the Complaint under reference in the RTI Application and as a result 3 of this he was terminated from his service. For the said reasons, he insisted that he has every right to access the information related to the Complaint and the action taken thereupon.
The CPIO submitted that the Complainant has sought for information regarding a Complaint filed by a third party against another individual, therefore the information sought for was denied to him under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission recalled at this point that the same subject matter has been already dealt with by this bench in an earlier case of the Complainant decided vide File No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2018/167683 on 04.01.2021. The following extract of the Complainant's submissions as well as the earlier decision was reconsidered in the context of the instant case:
"The Appellant stated that he received certain letter(s) from CVC and Vigilance Cell, DST regarding confirmation of a Complaint dated 22.01.2018 against Dr. Bindu Dey, Secretary, Technology Development Board (TDB) levelling corruption charges on appointment and misuse of official vehicle. He further stated that he had denied in writing vide his letter dated 16.04.2018 both to CVC & DST that no such complaint was made by him and that his forged identity was being used to defame him. He furthermore stated that while discussing the matter with Vigilance Cell, DST, he was assured that the matter would be marked as anonymous and that neither DST nor CVC will initiate any action thereon. He also alleged that subsequently, Dr. Bindu Dey suspended 15 contractual staffs vide their letter dated 22.04.2018 without according any reasons while stating that TDB has received a letter from four contractual employees levelling corruption charges against the Secretary, TDB and now vigilance enquiry is being proposed in the matter. He urged that his livelihood has been affected and he has been rendered jobless for over 15 months now, and that his harassment on account of presuming that he had filed the averred complaint is also in violation of the protection afforded under the Whistleblower Protection Act. He also added that he has not been getting any relief from his department or the Court in the matter and for said reasons he seeks the intervention of the Commission in reinstatement of his service as well as for receiving the desired information sought for in the RTI Application."
At this point, the Commission enquired from the Appellant if he has approached the appropriate Court of Law in the matter, to which, he agreed to.
xxx Decision xxx Moreover, the sum and substance of the instant Appeal is that the Appellant is aggrieved with his termination amongst few other employees allegedly for having filed the averred Complaint, even though he had categorically denied to the CVC about having filed the said Complaint. The Appellant has also submitted at length about how disclosing the averred complaint to Dr. Bindu Dey by CVC was illegal and that it is against the provisions of the Whistleblower's Protection Act, 2014. Although, the Commission empathizes with the cause of 4 the Appellant, however, neither the information sought for in the RTI Application conforms to the provisions of the RTI Act nor are the grounds of Appeal amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act as the Appellant has questioned his termination and the alleged disclosure of the averred complaint to the accused officer i.e Dr. Bindu Dey....."
The Complainant premised his arguments for relief on the same grounds as stated above and pointed out that in the earlier case, he was told that his RTI Application was not as per Section 2(f) but since the instant RTI Application is as per Section 2(f), the information should be provided to him.
In further course of the hearing, as the Complainant continued insisting for relief, the Commission apprised him that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be lifted in the facts of the instant case as rightly pointed out by the CPIO, ex-facie, the averred Complaint was neither filed by the Complainant, nor was it against him. In other words, the matter entirely concerns other individuals and the Complainant's arguments regarding his name being misused and him having withdrawn his name from the Complaint can at best be deemed as conjecture and any grievance emanating therefrom should be pursued before the appropriate forum.
The Complainant was livid for not ordering relief in his matter and argued that he does not want to pursue the case any further while abruptly disconnecting his call during the audio conference.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and after due consideration of the Appellant's grievance observes that it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt by the own admission of the Complainant that neither the Complaint under reference was filed by him nor was the Complaint against him. As it follows then the denial of the information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn 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;
5Girish 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..."
Having observed as above, it is pertinent to note that no larger public interest is evinced in the matter as it concerns Complainant's service matter and is an administrative grievance for which he has quite appropriately approached the concerned Court of Law.
Similarly, the insistence of the Complainant to call into question the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in the matter on the basis that he believes that his name was misused by some persons cannot be determined on merits as the same is outside the scope of adjudication of the Commission under the RTI Act. In this regard, the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what 6 inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished." (Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes." (Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under: "8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In view of the foregoing considerations, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) नहािन) नहािन Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 8