Central Information Commission
Siddhartha Mukherjee vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 13 June, 2023
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.
िशकायत सं या/Complaint No.
CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/656712 CIC/HPCLD/C/2022/600377
CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659688 CIC/HPCLD/A/2022/605629
CIC/HPCLD/A/2021/659690 CIC/HPCLD/C/2022/613351
CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659760 CIC/HPCLD/C/2022/613404
CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659785
Shri Siddhartha Mukherjee ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/HR Head-NZ HPCL ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Delhi
Through: Shri Sharad Singh - Head, HR & CPIO;
Shri Shivesh Kumar Tripathi
Date of Hearing : 07.06.2023
Date of Decision : 13.06.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
656712 09.08.2021 01.09.2021 17.10.2021 16.11.2021 29.11.2021
659688 13.05.2021 08.06.2021 12.11.2021 10.12.2021 12.12.2021
659690 24.02.2021 24.03.2021 11.11.2021 11.12.2021 12.12.2021
659760 06.10.2021 03.11.2021 04.11.2021 02.12.2021 13.12.2021
659785 06.10.2021 03.11.2021 04.11.2021 02.12.2021 13.12.2021
600377 09.11.2021 03.12.2021 04.12.2021 03.01.2022 04.01.2022
605629 03.12.2021 31.12.2021 02.01.2022 27.01.2022 28.01.2022
613351 05.01.2022 31.01.2022 02.02.2022 01.03.2022 07.03.2022
613404 23.12.2021 07.01.2022 Nil - 07.03.2022
Information soughtand background of the cases:
Page 1 of 40(1) CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/656712 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2021 seeking the following information:-Page 2 of 40
The CPIO/HR Head-NZ, HPCL, vide letter dated 01.09.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.2021. The FAA/General Manager(I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide order dated 16.11.2021 held as under:-Page 3 of 40
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
The Complainant has filed his submission dated 06.05.2023 reiterating facts of the abovementioned case and alleging non-compliance of the FAA's directions by the PIO by non furnishing of point wise reply. The submissions filed by the Complainant have been duly taken on record.
Subsequently, the Complainant filed an application dated 26.05.2023 requesting that out of the sixteen cases filed, nine cases specifically mentioned by him may be re-scheduled since he would not be able to address his contentions in all the cases on a single day. He also requested that his cases be heard through physical hearing and not Intra Video Conferencing.
The Respondent - CPIO, HPCL has filed written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts and stated as under:Page 4 of 40
A copy of the PIO's reply dated 25.11.2021 sent to the Complainant, in compliance of the FAA's order dated 16.11.2021, attached with the submission reveals the following:Page 5 of 40
This was followed by a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and an Addendum dated 03.06.2023 filed by the Complainant, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Complainant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
Page 6 of 40Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that the PIO had duly complied with the FAA's order dated 16.11.2021 and sent the response dated 25.11.2021, furnishing point wise information as available on records. The said response dated 25.11.2021 is legally accurate, comprehensive and self explanatory and is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
In the given circumstances, it is evident that information as available on record with the public authority has been duly furnished by the Respondent, in compliance with the FAA's order. The FAA vide order dated 16.11.2021 had directed the PIO to furnish point wise reply within 10 days of receipt of the order and the PIO sent the reply in compliance thereof vide letter dated 25.11.2021. Thus the Commission is of the opinion that the case does not merit action under Section 18 of the RTI Act, since there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information or delay in furnishing of information by the Respondent.
Hence the complaint is disposed off as such.
(2) CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659688 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2021 seeking information on 07 points, including the following:-
Page 7 of 40Etc. The CPIO/HR Head -NZ vide letter dated 08.06.2021 replied as under:-Page 8 of 40
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2021. The FAA/General Manager(I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide letter dated 10.12.2021 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
The Complainant has filed his written statement dated 14.05.2023 with respect to the above case,reiterating facts of the abovementioned case specifically objecting to the denial of information with respect to queries 1,2 and 4. He has submitted his objections against the reply furnished by the Respondent on each of his queries and has cited the decision dated 05.02.2021 of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shrivastava vs. CIC contending that where any public authority takes recourse to Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to withhold information, the burden is on the public authority to show that in what manner disclosure of such information could impede the investigation., which in the instant case, the Respondent has failed to do. The submissions filed by the Complainant have been duly taken on record.Page 9 of 40
The Respondent filed written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts and has stated as under:
This was followed by a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and an Addendum dated 03.06.2023 filed by the Complainant, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Complainant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
Decision Perusal of records of the case reveals that the primary issue raised by the Complainant revolves around the appointment of the investigating committee by the Disciplinary Authority which according to him is contrary to the Standing Orders. The Complainant further questioned as to why the Respondent did not proceed ex parte in the inquiry proceedings, against him. It is the contention of the Complainant that denial of information with respect to the queries 1, 2 and 4 by the Respondent citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without appropriately justifying as to what process of investigation was impeded is incorrect and leads to obstructing the dissemination of information. The Commission is in agreement Page 10 of 40 with the contention put forth by the Complainant in as much as the Respondent ought not to have denied disclosure of information invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, without appropriately establishing with cogent reason as to how the process of investigation is likely to be impeded or hampered by disclosure of the information. Hence the denial of information invoking the Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in this case is legally untenable.
However, it cannot be overlooked that the queries raised at point 1,2 and 4 challenge the appointment of the investigating committee and the investigation process as to why the process is not continuing on ex parte basis etc. none of which falls within the ambit of the RTI Act. The Applicant actually seeks justification and clarification from the Disciplinary Authority about the actions taken by them. The queries being clarificatory in nature cannot be answered with facts readily available on record with the public authority, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
At this juncture, the Commission wishes to refer to some relevant decisions of the Courts, which have dealt with queries which seek justification or clarification, and it has been held as under:
i. In a decision dated 03.04.2018, the Bombay High Court while deciding the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission held as under:
" ..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 be expected 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..."
ii. The Apex Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors on 4 January, 2010 while deciding SLP (Civil) No.34868/ 2009 had discussed this issue 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 Page 11 of 40 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, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion..."
iii. The Apex Court in the decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled: Central Board Of Secondary Education &Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors specifically discussed this aspect:
"35. ....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..."
Thus, in the light of the foregoing decisions whereby the legal position is well settled, the queries raised by the Complainant could not have been answered under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act, since the Act is not designed to adjudicate disputes regarding the constitution or functioning of the Investigating Committee or decide as to how the Committee shall operate or conduct its Inquiry. Such queries do not fall within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence, information could not have been furnished by the Respondent with respect to the justifications sought by the Complainant, since the RTI Act does not require the public authority to justify, clarify or give their personal opinions. Denial of the information on queries 1, 2 and 4 is thus upheld. However, denial of information citing section 8(1)(h) is not tenable.
Be that as it may, as discussed hereinabove, since there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information or delay in furnishing of information by the Respondent, no further action is warranted under the Section 18 of the RTI Act.
The instant complaint is thus disposed off.
(3) CIC/HPCLD/A/2021/659690 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.02.2021 seeking the information on 04 points, including the following:-
Page 12 of 40The CPIO/HR Head-NZ, HPCL vide letter dated 24.03.2021 replied as under:-Page 13 of 40
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2021. The FAA/General Manager(I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide order dated 10.12.2021 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
The Appellant has filed his written statement dated 12.05.2023 specifically objecting to the denial of information with respect to queries 1,2 and 4, on the basis of pendency of the Writ Petition No. 2392/2021. The submissions filed by the Complainant have been duly taken on record.
The Respondent filed a written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts and stating as under:Page 14 of 40
This was followed by a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and Addendum dated 03.06.2023 filed by the Appellant, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Appellant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
Decision Deliberation between parties reveals that the instant case pertains to information related to a complaint filed by the Appellant against an officer working with the public authority. Subsequently, the Appellant had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 2392/2021 with respect to the same issue. The Respondent had cited the pendency of the writ petition as a ground for denial of information sought by him at queries number 1, 2 and 4. Considering the fact that there is no restraint order Page 15 of 40 from the Court in the pending writ petition, the Commission is not convinced with the reply of the Respondent. During the course of hearing, the Appellant specified that he sought information about the complaint filed by him. As such, the Commission reframes the query with the consent of the Appellant and directs the Respondent public authority to send a revised reply to the Appellant furnishing him information about the current updated position of the complaint filed by him. The Respondent shall send the revised reply within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission by 30.06.2023.
(4) CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659760 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.10.2021 seeking the following information:-
Page 16 of 40The CPIO/HR Head-NZ, HPCL vide letter dated 03.11.2021 replied as under:-Page 17 of 40
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 05.11.2021. The FAA/General Manager (I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide order dated 02.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
The Complainant has filed his written statement dated 11.05.2023, confirming that a copy of the Inquiry Report of the Internal Complaints Committee had been provided to him, but the CCTV footage sought by him was denied as was information related to Shri Vishal Kohli, who was allegedly extended financial benefit of additional financial increment over and above the pay scales.
The Respondent filed a written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts in the following manner:Page 18 of 40
This was followed by a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and an Addendum dated 03.06.2023 filed by the Complainant, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Complainant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
While the Complainant contended that he was not satisfied with the information provided to him, the Respondent answered that information sought by the Complainant at A1, has been provided to him during the course of the proceeding itself, since he is a part of the Enquiry. With respect to the query number A 2, information available on record has also been furnished and no further record exists except what has already been provided to the Complainant. For the queries raised by the Complainant in B1, B2 and B3, Respondent reiterated their respective contentions stated above, justifying denial of information.
Decision Perusal of the facts of the case at hand and averments of the parties reveals that the queries A1 and A2 have been responded to with information as available with the public authority. The Complainant had been admittedly furnished a copy of the Inquiry Report of the Internal Complaints Committee; but his query about the CCTV footage is not likely to be addressed satisfactorily, because no footage is likely to be preserved beyond a short period of time. As already stated by the Respondent's counsel before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 during the proceeding held on 23.02.2021, the CCTV footage is not preserved beyond a period of seven to ten days.
In so far as queries B1, B2 and B3 are concerned, there is no legal infirmity in the response furnished by the PIO, because information pertaining to a third Page 19 of 40 party employee-Shri Vishal Kohli is exempted from disclosure by the Respondent under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
It is worthwhile to mention Apex Court decision dated 03.10.2012 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., wherein it was held:
"...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..."
In another subsequent decision dated 16.04.2013, in the case of R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had upheld the denial of disclosure of copy of note sheets and correspondences of ACR file, including adverse entries of a third party with the following observation:
" 17. In view of the discussion made above and the decision in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande(supra), as the appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to adverse entries in the ACR and the 'follow up action' taken therein on the question of integrity, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed.."
Likewise in the case of Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam and Another, wherein the applicant had sought information on parameters with regard to transfer of clerical staff with details of individual employees, such as date of their joining, promotion earned, date of their joining the branch, the authorities who had posted the transfer letters, etc., which were declared to be personal in nature, and was conditionally exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
"..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.Page 20 of 40
And finally, the latest decision dated 13.11.2019 of the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 CPIO, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal has clearly established the following legal position:
"..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. ..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.
Emphasis supplied Thus, in the light of the foregoing decisions whereby the legal position has been clearly laid down, the queries B1 and B2 raised by the Complainant could not have been answered under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act, by virtue of the application of provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Thus the reply of the PIO is found to be in order and accordingly upheld.
In the light of the above facts, since there appears no case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information or delay in furnishing of information by the Respondent, no further action is warranted under the Section 18 of the RTI Act.
The instant complaint is thus disposed off.
(5) CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659785 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2021 seeking the following information:-
I was transferred Inter-State from Delhi to Jallandhar during the pendency of ICC inquiry proceedings, fact recorded in the ICC Inquiry report. Information may please be shared about the number of reminders issued to me by the location In-charge of Jallandhar Retail Regional Office for reporting to the transferred location. Also, the number of reminders which have been issued by the Rewari Installation In-charge, including the current disciplinary authority which have been issued to me for the said instant inter-state transfer to Rewari.
The CPIO/HR Head- NZ, HPCL vide letter dated 03.11.2021 replied as under:-Page 21 of 40
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2021. The FAA/General Manager (I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide order dated 02.12.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
The Complainant has filed his written statement dated 15.05.2023 narrating at great length the various aspects which gave rise to the multiple cases filed by him including the one at hand, his grievances arising out of his alleged illegal Inter- State Transfer order issued on 14.12.2015, pendency of ICC enquiry etc. The detailed and lengthy submissions have been duly taken on record.
The Respondent filed written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts and stating as under:Page 22 of 40
Subsequently, the Complainant filed a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and an Addendum dated 03.06.2023, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021, with respect to two of the writ petitions filed by him, claiming that he is a whistle blower, as also submitted by him before the Hon'ble Court.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Complainant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove. The Complainant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply of the Respondent.
Decision Upon perusal of the records and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer to an observation made by the Madras High Court in the case of PIO, The Registrar, High Court of Madras vs. CIC and Mr. B Bharathi [WP(C) No. 26781/2013] decided on 17.09.2014, in similar situation, wherein the Applicant had sought information which was available with the Applicant himself. In such circumstances, the Court had held as under:
".. 26. Insofar as query (iv) is concerned, we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his own complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the Page 23 of 40 other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right, thinking that the High Court will preserve his frivolous applications as treasures/valuable assets. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, we reject the contention of the second respondent in this aspect."
The law propounded in the aforementioned decision squarely applies to the facts of the instant case at hand and thus communication which was sent to the Applicant as recipient thereof ought to be in the custody of the Applicant. Such records cannot be considered as information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence no legal infirmity can be attributed the response sent by the PIO. In the light of the above facts, no case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information or delay in furnishing of information is found against the Respondent. Accordingly, no further action is warranted under the Section 18 of the RTI Act in the instant case.
The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
(6) CIC/HPCLD/C/2022/600377 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.11.2021 seeking the following information:-
On 09.10.2021 at 4.01 PM I had had brought to the intimation of Head- HR (NZ) about unauthorized participation of some workmen of HPCL (management as well as non-management) in the proceedings initiated by the Office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies. CPIO to whom this complaint was addressed to may please inform about the action taken in the said complaint. In this connection circular signed by the CPIO dated 02.02.2021 which was displayed on the Notice Board of the Office of the Public Authority is referred.
The CPIO/HR Head- NZ, HPCL vide letter dated 03.12.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.11.2021. The FAA/General Manager (I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide order dated 03.01.2022 held as under:-Page 24 of 40
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
The Complainant has filed his submission dated 14.05.2023 with respect to the above case, which has been duly taken on record. He has referred to a decision dated 15.11.2018 passed by J. Suresh Kait of the Delhi High Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. [WP(C) 11897/2016] wherein disclosure of information was directed by the Court overruling the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act claimed by the Respondent while holding as under:
The Respondent filed written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts as under:Page 25 of 40
The Complainant has filed a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and an Addendum dated 03.06.2023, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021, which pertain to two of the writ petitions filed by him against the Respondent public authority.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Complainant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
Decision Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information sought by the Complainant: "action taken in the said complaint dated 09.10.2021" had been duly answered by the Respondent-PIO vide reply dated 03.12.2021 stating that in the absence of any corroborative evidence, no action was taken.
There is no lapse on the part of the Respondent in furnishing the information as available on record. The Respondent public authority is not supposed to furnish any justification or clarification, in terms of the decisions as discussed in the case number: CIC/HPCLD/C/2021/659688 hereinabove. The pertinent decisions are as under:
1. In a decision dated 03.04.2018, the Bombay High Court while deciding the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. The Goa State Information Commission, Page 26 of 40
2. The decision dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Ors in SLP (Civil) No.34868/ 2009
3. The decision dated 09.08.2011 of the Apex Court in Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
Since the Respondent had not denied disclosure of information in this case, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the decision dated 15.11.2018 passed by J. Suresh Kait of the Delhi High Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. [WP(C) 11897/2016] referred by the Complainant is irrelevant to the facts of the case at hand.
Considering the fact that information held by the Respondent had been accurately furnished, no case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment or suppression of information or delay in furnishing of information is found against the Respondent. Hence, no further action is warranted under the Section 18 of the RTI Act in the instant case.
The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
(7) CIC/HPCLD/A/2022/605629 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2021 seeking the following information:-
Information may be please be shared about the settlement allowance claimed by S/Shri Rajiv Kharbanda, L.K. Asija and Harish Sachdeva post their respective retirement/superannuation from service and in particular about their destination furnished in their declaration form(s), respectively as well as the details of the approving authority.
The CPIO/HR Head- NZ, HPCL vide letter dated 31.12.2021 replied as under:-Page 27 of 40
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.01.2022. The FAA/General Manager (I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide order dated 27.01.2022 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant has filed his submission dated 16.05.2023 with respect to the above case, which has been duly taken on record. He has referred to a decision dated 15.11.2018 passed by J. Suresh Kait of the Delhi High Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. [WP(C) 11897/2016] wherein it was held as under:
The Respondent filed written submission dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the abovementioned facts and stating as under:Page 28 of 40
The Appellant has filed a Rejoinder dated 01.06.2023 and an Addendum dated 03.06.2023, annexing copies of orders dated 23.02.2021, 17.03.2021, 03.08.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 2392/2021 and order dated 09.08.2021 in WP(C) No. 8008/2021, which are two of the writ petitions filed by him against the Respondent public authority.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Appellant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
The Appellant objected to the denial of information and reiterated his contentions from the written submission dated 16.05.2023 discussed hereinabove.
Decision Perusal of the facts of the case at hand and averments of the parties reveals that the information about "settlement allowance claimed by S/Shri Rajiv Kharbanda, L.K. Asija and Harish Sachdeva post their respective retirement/superannuation from service..", sought by the Appellant is undoubtedly third party information. Apart from allegations of corruptions levelled by the Appellant, there is nothing on record to establish the claims of corruption against the third party, viz. ex employees of the Respondent public authority nor has any case of larger public interest being served been argued by the Appellant. On the other hand, in the case cited by the Appellant viz. Food Corporation of India vs. Central Information Commission & Anr., the Hon'ble Court had passed the direction for disclosure of information about the third party on the basis of the following observation:
".7. It is not in dispute that the information is sought qua the officer of the petitioner who has been charge-sheeted and finally punished by the petitioner.......Since, the officer of the petitioner has already charge- sheeted, faced the Department Enquiry and finally punished, then what is the personal information with the petitioner and why the petitioner is not furnishing the details ask by the respondent No.2 herein..."Page 29 of 40
It is also noteworthy that considering the importance of protecting privacy of any individual, the Apex Court in its decision dated 13.11.2019 in the Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 CPIO, Supreme Court vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal has clearly laid down the following legal position:
"..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. ..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.
Emphasis supplied The basic factual premise of proof of corruption of the third party forming the basis of the decision cited by the Appellant is thus not akin to the case at hand, under adjudication. In the instant case, except the unsubstantiated allegations of the Appellant, there is no ground for disclosure of personal information of two former employees thereby causing unwarranted invasion of privacy. Since the factual matrices of the two cases cannot be compared, hence the decision cited by the Appellant is not applicable to the instant appeal.
In the instant appeal, wherein information about retired employees and terms of their retirement have been sought by the Appellant, based on only his own instinct without adducing any documentary evidence to prove any case of corruption or larger public interest being served by disclosure of such information, the personal information is held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity and hence barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The reply of the Respondent does not require any further intervention. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(8) CIC/HPCLD/C/2022/613351 (9) CIC/HPCLD/C/2022/613404 The Complainant filed RTI applications dated 03.01.2022 & 05.01.2022 before the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas[MOPNG for short] seeking the following information:-
CPIO may please furnish information whether its subordinate public authority under its administrative control has complied with the directions passed by the Honorable Delhi High Court as per attached copy of order. Information in this regard may be provided under Section 7 subsection 1 of the RTI Act, 2055 which mandates furnishing information within 48 hours as the information is connected Page 30 of 40 with the life and liberty of the information seeker and his family members because HPCL has stopped disbursing the requisite subsistence allowance as well as withheld his salary from the months of January 2021 onwards.
The RTI application was transferred to the HPCL by letter dated 05.01.2022, under intimation to the Appellant and the CPIO/HR Head- NZ, HPCL vide letter dated 31.01.2022 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 02.02.2022 & 03.02.2022. The FAA/General Manager (I/c)-HR, Marketing Division vide orders dated 01.03.2022 & 02.03.2022 held as under:-
A copy of the ordersheet dated 27.11.2019 pertaining to the same writ petition [WP(C) No. 27.11.2019] has been submitted on record which reveals the following:Page 31 of 40
Despite the above factual position, the Appellant approached the Commission with the aforementioned Second Appeals.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, HPCL vide letter dated 31.05.2023 reiterating the aforementioned facts and adding as under:Page 32 of 40
The Respondent further added as under:
The Respondent has submitted a brief background of the reason behind the aforementioned cases summarising the employer-employee dispute in the following words:Page 33 of 40 Page 34 of 40
The Respondent has also placed reliance on various judgments in support of their contention about misuse of the RTI Act, wherein the Courts had given their observations like the following:
i) Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
ii) Civil Appeal No. 7571/2011 ICAI vs. Shaunak H Satya
iii) WP(C) 845/2014 Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.
The Applicant filed his submissions dated 01/02.06.2023 in the form of a paragraph-wise rejoinder with respect to the above cases, which have been duly taken on record. The Applicant has also filed an addendum dated 03.06.2023 Page 35 of 40 stating the facts of the Civil Writ Petition No. 2392/2021 and 8008/2021 stating that he was selectively targeted for being a whistle blower.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. At the repeated and specific request of the Complainant, physical hearing was conducted and the parties made their respective submissions, in line with their arguments noted hereinabove.
Decision:
Upon hearing the averments of the parties and perusal of records of the aforementioned two complaints, arising out of the same RTI application, it is noted that the Complainant has sought compliance of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing RTI applications before a public authority which is neither a party to the writ petition nor responsible for carrying out the directions of the Hon'ble Court. Thus, the very purpose of the RTI Act of ensuring dissemination of information held by the concerned public authority has been defeated and the Act has been wrongly invoked by the Applicant for ensuring compliance of an order. Compliance of an order passed by the High Court cannot be enforced under the RTI Act. The Applicant in this case, having filed multiple cases against the Respondent public authority, duly assisted by his legal counsel should have apprised the concerned Court about non adherence of its order.
It is also noteworthy that on the very next date of hearing of the WP(C) No. 4928/2019, i.e. on 27.11.2019, in the presence of the Applicant and his lawyers, the Respondent's counsel made a statement before the Court that the affidavit directed by the Court had been duly filed, in compliance with the order of the Court. In the event of any non-compliance or dereliction, the Court would have taken cognizance, of the same. It is certainly not the prerogative of this Commission to decide the issue which is pending before the Writ Court.
In fact, an RTI application filed in 2022, regarding compliance of a High Court order passed on 18.09.2019, before a public authority which is not even the relevant public authority as per the mandate of the Act, are sufficient grounds for dismissal of these two complaints, since it indicates misuse of the RTI Act by the information seeker.
The nine cases filed by the Applicant and adjudicated hereinabove as well as the four writ petitions before the Delhi High Court (as stated by the parties) and other proceedings initiated by the Applicant herein, before various forums arise out of the same cause of action viz. employer-employee dispute and grievance of the Applicant. The Commission has repeatedly held that the scope and ambit of the RTI Act is restricted to dissemination of information, as defined under the Act, to the information seeker and grievance redressal or dispute resolution does not fall within its jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 of 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:Page 36 of 40
"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.."
The Applicant in these cases has various issues with his employer organisation and has rightly approached the High Court seeking resolution thereof. However, filing repeated RTI applications against the concerned public authority is unlikely to lead to resolution of these disputes.
In fact, it is interesting to note that such litigation whereby the Act has been misused or abused as a weapon for settling personal scores has been discouraged by not only this Commission but also the Courts of law.
This Commission has in its decision dated 30.06.2015 while adjudicating a batch of fifteen matters as appeals number no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123, 001210+12 filed by one Shri M Danasegar held as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinaryproceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. ..."
Emphasis supplied The Commission in its aforesaid decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions had placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries(AIR 1980 SC 946) whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court had termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its Page 37 of 40 process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
In a subsequent instance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had discussed the same issue in great detail in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal, (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11), where J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
Emphasis supplied The Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.V.Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging Page 38 of 40 corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Emphasis supplied Before concluding the cases at hand, the Commission finds it worthwhile to mention that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 held that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that an order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by Page 39 of 40 a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
In the light of the above detailed discussion, the cases are disposed off as such. The Applicant is advised to pursue appropriate legal remedy already initiated by him for resolution of his service related grievances, for reasons discussed hereinabove.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 40 of 40