Central Information Commission
Sanjay Kumar Goyal vs Ordnance Factory Board on 4 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/127243
In the matter of:
Sanjay Kumar Goyal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ordnance Factory Board
Ordnance Factory Raipur, Dehradun - 248 008
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 14/02/2019 CPIO replied on : 19/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 08/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 06/05/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 04/06/2019 Date of Hearing : 03/03/2021 Date of Decision : 03/03/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC at Dehradun Respondent: Shri V.S Chaudhary, Deputy General Manager and PIO, present over VC at Dehradun Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect of Mr. Mukul Rajvanshi:
1. Date of his joining the Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun.
2. Details of various department/section where he has been posted till date in Ordnance Factory, Dehradun.
3. Date of joining and Date of relieving from each of the department and the section of that Department.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the desired information being personal information of the third party.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the information sought is not confidential and should be disclosed as per the mandate u/s 4 (1)(b) of the RTI Act. He also relied on the decision dated 11.07.2007 in the matter of Canara Bank vs The Central Information, AIR 2007 Ker 225.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought is related to third party. Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 19.03.2019 had denied the information sought being related to third party and personal in nature. Moreover, the CPIO had also mentioned that there is no larger public interest in this case. The FAA also vide order dated 06.05.2019 had concurred with the CPIO's reply.
The Commission observed that the CPIO had provided a poorly worded reply, as, the denial of information should always be supported with the proper exemption clause and appropriate applicability of the same to this specific case. Moreover, attention is drawn to the order of the Supreme Court, in the matter of Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam dated 31 August, 2017, in which it was held as follows:
"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 "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.
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."
The appellant in this case asked for the date of joining of Mr. Mukul Rajvanshi, in Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, details of various departments/sections where he has been posted till date in the Ordnance Factory, Dehradun, date of joining and date of relieving from each of the departments and the sections of that Department. The Commission observed that information in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application, i.e date of joining in OFB Dehradun can be given, however, the rest are personal in nature and hence exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as per the decision relied on the above. Moreover, the appellant failed to show any larger public interest in the matter for the Commission to consider lifting the exemption clause. Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on point no. 1 of the RTI application within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the points are personal in nature and there is no public interest in this case, therefore no futher information can be given on these points.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date