Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Central Vigilance Commission on 20 October, 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/CVCOM/A/2020/109007
Deepak Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
1. Central Vigilance Commission,
RTI Cell, Satarkta Bhawan,
G.P.O Complex, Block A, INA,
New Delhi-110023.
CPIO,
2. Central Reserve Police Force
RTI Cell, Dte. General
Block No.1, CGO Complex
Delhi-110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 13/09/2021
Date of Decision : 15/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2019
CPIO replied on : 26/11/2019
1
First appeal filed on : 02/01/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 23/01/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/02/2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2019 with CVC seeking the following information pertaining to the Commission's File No. 014/HMA/021 arising out of his complaint dated 19.11.2014 regarding corrupt practices of K S Anupam (IPS 1998 BH):
1. Investigation Report submitted by the CRPF along with all its annexures
2. Investigation Report submitted by the Govt of Bihar along with all its annexures
3. All correspondence made/ orders passed/reminders made by the Commission to various authorities/departments in reference to this complaint.
4. All File Notings made by the Commission in this matter.
The CPIO, CVC furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 26.11.2019 stating as under:
Point No. 1:- CPIO transferred the RTI application to the CRPF under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 2:-CPIO transferred the RTI application to the Govt. of Bihar under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Point Nos. 3-4:- CPIO denied information denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied with the denial of the information on points 3 & 4 of the RTI Application, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.01.2020. FAA's order dated 23.01.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.2
Respondent No.1: Sindhu Pillai, Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
Respondent No.2: M J Vijay, DIGP (Admn) & CPIO along with Rakesh Choudhary, Deputy Commandant present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the denial of the information by the CVC and narrated the factual background of the case as stated in the grounds of the Second Appeal, which is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
"The appellant, Deepak Kumar, had filed a complaint against K S Anupam (lPS: BH I998) with the CVC on 19.11.2014 alleging corruption, financial swindling, victimisation and amassing of illegal wealth by misusing her official post and position. This was backed by credible documentary evidence which were found to be true and genuine in a police investigation ordered by the Police Headquarters, Patna at the behest of the National Human Rights Commission.
The primary allegation of the appellant was that when the father of K S Anupam was critically ill and in coma in a hospital in Patna in 2006, she requested the appellant with whom she had very good relations to arrange for a payment of Rs.3,35,000/- towards Air Ambulance charges to airlift her father from Patna to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. This money was promised to be returned as soon as possible by K S Anupam. Seeing the emergency, the appellant arranged for the required amount and a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/- was paid through bank and credit card transactions to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi towards Air Ambulance charges of K S Anupam's father. There exists documentary evidence of these transactions in form of Apollo Hospital receipts, Bank statements, other records and sworn Affidavits of the transferees which was verified and found to be true in an investigation conducted by CID, Bihar Police.
However, even after her father recovered and got well. K S Anupam did not return the money promising to pay it back sometime later. In the meanwhile, she got posted as SSP, Bhagalpur where the appellant ordinarily was a resident of. On insistence of the appellant to return the amount, she got annoyed and falsely had the appellant implicated by some of her SHOs in a series of false cases with serious charges of murder, Arms Act, theft, forgery, etc. In such compelling circumstances, the appellant approached the DGP, Bihar as well as the Hon'ble High Court, Patna citing financial transactions and the ensuing disfavour (attracting Sec 7 of PCA) as reasons of his false implication. K S Anupam, along with her husband, Amritrai (also an IPS:BH l998) and one Ranjan Kumar (a cousin of Amrit Rai) filed 3 separate affidavits in Oct 2012 before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna stating on oath that the appellant, Deepak Kumar, had not paid a single farthing towards the Air Ambulance charges of K S Anupam's father and that the amount had been paid from K S Anupam's bank account; a contention found to be blatantly false in police investigation. Copies of the 3 affidavits filed by K S Anupam and her relatives constitute a part of the original complaint made by the appellant to the CVC in Nov 2014.3
In the meanwhile, the DGP, Bihar ordered a higher investigation by a DIG rank IPS officer into the allegations levelled by the appellant. The higher investigation found the appellant to be completely innocent on all counts and found him to be falsely implicated in all cases. Prosecution u/s 182/211 IPC was ordered against the SHO, Kotwali, Bhagalpur for falsely implicating the appellant. 3 SHOs also had to suffer incarceration and the NHRC imposed a fine on Bhagalpur police for violating the Human Rights of the appellant and his family members. The SHO Kotwali was also held guilty and awarded a major punishment in a Departmental Proceeding that followed the higher investigation.
Meanwhile, the CVC sought reports from the CRPF (where K S Anupam was currently posted), Bihar government and the CBI.
It was later made known to the appellant through a RTI query in Dec 2019 that the CVC had exonerated K S Anupam in Feb 2019 on the basis of reports received from Bihar Police which had arrived at a conclusion on the basis of another statement of Ranjan Kumar taken on plain paper on 30 Aug 2018 which now stated that he, Ranjan Kumar, had returned the whole amount of Rs.3,35,000/- to the appellant in 2006 itself (the report filed by Bihar Police and the statement of Ranjan Kumar have been obtained by the appellant from Bihar police through RTI).
This second statement of Ranjan Kumar was accepted as the gospel truth and K S Anupam was given a clean chit by the CVC completely ignoring the previously filed affidavit dt. 12 Oct 2012 of same Ranjan Kumar available on CVC records which categorically stated that the appellant had not paid a single farthing towards Air Ambulance charges of K S Anupam's father.
A moot point here is that when according to the previous sworn affidavit of the same Ranjan Kumar when the appellant had not paid a single farthing; what was the occasion to return the whole amount of Rs. 3,35,000/- to him. And this too when existence of any such payment was denied even by K S Anupam and her husband.
Finding this to be a case of non - application of mind by the CVC, the appellant sought the various reports filed by different agencies before the CVC as well as its file notings/exoneration report which were denied to the appellant on grounds of the information being Third Party Information that had no bearing on public interest."
In pursuance of the above background, the Appellant harped on the fact that the citations relied upon by the FAA in his order to deny the information are misplaced in his case as those cases were not premised on the issue of larger public interest while in his case the larger public interest is apparent from the fact that the officer under reference has misused her official position to press false charges against not just him but also several junior officers who came in the way of realizing her misdeeds. He emphasized that public interest is a matter in which 'a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected' and urged that the instant case clearly concerns the interests of all the affected officers against whom false cases were registered by the averred officer.
4Later, he pointed out that the CRPF has also provided an unsatisfactory reply by claiming the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act even as his case clearly related to allegations of corruption.
The Commission remarked that the instant Appeal has been specifically filed against the reply of CVC, yet in the interest of justice, the Appellant's case against CRPF is also being taken on record.
Respondent No.1 reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and upon a query from the Commission submitted that the case file related to complaint of the Appellant under reference in the RTI Application was closed in February, 2019.
The Appellant lastly requested for the report of the Bihar Government as sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application to be also provided to him.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the very outset that the contentions of the Appellant urging larger public interest as well as allegations of corruption in the disclosure of the investigation reports and file noting(s) related to a third party appears to be far stretched as the material on record clearly suggests a personal animosity. The Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the very premise of this case is money borrowed from the Appellant by the third party in a personal capacity for a personal exigency and allegations of eventually not returning that amount to the Appellant.
The sole argument of the Appellant revolved around the fact that the averred third party implicated the Appellant and perhaps other officers too in various false criminal cases allegedly to evade returning the borrowed amount, which does not make for a substantial argument to ascribe larger public interest outweighing the privacy of the third party as envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as well as a catena of judgments of the Apex Court. In this regard, the 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) of RTI Act 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 5 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. XXX
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. 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 6 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..."
Emphasis Supplied Subsequently, 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 while explaining the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act referred to the above discussed judgments and observed as under:
"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 ofhospitals 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..." Emphasis Supplied Now, adverting to the aspect of larger public interest argued in the matter, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9052 OF 2012] wherein it was observed as under:7
"23. The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Emphasis Supplied "24. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality."
".... Similarly, there may be cases where the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it may even cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. All these protections have to be given their due implementation as they spring from statutory exemptions. It is not a decision simpliciter between private interest and public interest. It is a matter where a constitutional protection is available to a person with regard to the right to privacy. Thus, the public interest has to be construed while keeping in mind the balance factor between right to privacy and right to information with the purpose sought to be achieved and the purpose that would be served in the larger public interest, particularly when both these rights emerge from the constitutional values under the Constitution of India." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, in the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others [Appeal (Civil) 4937-4940 of 1998], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:8
"the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importance covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]". Emphasis Supplied As it follows, in the considered opinion of this bench the Appellant has not urged larger public interest in any of the above referred contexts, and therefore the Commission is not in a position to ascribe any credence to his contentions.
The Commission is also unable to appreciate the definition of public interest relied upon by the Appellant during the hearing in terms of the pecuniary interest or legal rights of a class of the community subsisting in the matter. Even if the Commission accepts the plea that the Appellant is fighting for the interest of the similarly affected junior officers or that he is not asking for any recovery, the fact remains that it all emanates from a case which has all the trappings of a personal feud. Similarly, whether the third party is using the official position to harass the Appellant in this personal feud is a matter which should be pursued before the appropriate Court of Law as adjudication on these aspects is not within the purview of the Commission under the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the Commission is constrained to order limited relief in the matter in terms of the gist of the action taken on the averred complaint of the Appellant that can be provided by Respondent No.1 based on the available records.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs Respondent No.1 to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application incorporating a gist of the findings of the averred investigation reports as well as a gist of the correspondences and file noting(s) made with respect to processing the complaint of the Appellant. The CPIO shall ensure that no personal details of third parties is extracted or reproduced in the said gist and it may only be indicative of inter alia references that led to the final outcome/closure of the case file.
The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by Respondent No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation of the Commission.9
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10