Central Information Commission
Bijjarapu Laxminarayana vs Ordnance Factory Board on 6 January, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/144811
Bijjarapu Laxminarayana ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Addl. General Manager,
Ordnance Factory, Chanda,
Distt - Chandrapur,
Maharashtra - 442501. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 21/03/2018
CPIO replied on : 06/04/2018
First appeal filed on : 25/04/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 25/05/2018
Second Appeal dated : 11/07/2018
Date of Hearing : 03/01/2020
Date of Decision : 03/01/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought service details of Madugula Premaiah, S/o. Veera Swamy working as Attendant in Ordnance Factory, Chanda.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Majumdar, Addl. GM & PIO, Ordnance Factory, Chanda, Distt.- Chandrapur, Maharashtra present through VC.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
PIO submitted that information sought has been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act after the third party refused to give consent for disclosure of the same.
Decision Commission has gone through the case records and observes that the information sought by the Appellant at paras 1, 3-9 of the RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 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) in 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 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.2
File No : CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/144811 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..."
Adverting to the supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of "personal information" exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the present case upholds the 3 submission of the PIO with regard to information denied on paras 1, 3-9 of the RTI Application.
As far as the information sought at para 2 of the RTI Application is concerned, Commission directs the PIO to provide copy of appointment letter to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent by the PIO to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
4