G. Anandaiah vs Department Of Posts on 29 June, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

G. Anandaiah vs Department Of Posts on 29 June, 2022

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2021/120755

G. Anandaiah                                        ......अपीलकता /Appellant
                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts, Office of
the General Manager, Postal
Accounts and Finance, RTI
Cell, Tamilnadu Circle,
Chennai-600008, Tamilnadu.                          .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                   :   27/06/2022
Date of Decision                  :   27/06/2022

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   23/09/2020
CPIO replied on                   :   23/10/2020 & 10/12/2020
First appeal filed on             :   17/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order   :   18/03/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   05/05/2021

Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2020 seeking information pertaining to Smt. Anitha working as GM (PAF). In this regard, he sought the following information:-

1. "Date of birth and date of joining in the above post at Chennai in case of Smt. Anitha. May kindly be furnished.

2. Full name of the said Smt. Anitha with initials

3. From the date of joining in the department the places from the year ---- to the year where she was serving. with detail particulars may be furnished.

4.After joining in the above post kindly furnish whether the staff quarters has been allotted. If not allotted where she is residing in Chennai with full details for HRA.

5. A copy of the pay bill of the Smt. Anitha for the month of August 2020 may be furnished.

6. Kindly furnish whether staff car has been allotted with driver. The name of the driver with details of service of the driver may be furnished.

7. A copy of the trip sheet for the month of July 2020 and August 2020 of the govt vehicle may kindly be furnished.

8. A copy of the service book first page with attestation. May be furnished.

9. A copy of the community certificate and a copy of the Revenues Authority verification report may kindly be furnished. in case of SC/ST.

10. A copy of the educational qualification certificate may kindly be furnished.

11. A copy of the transfer orders / promotion orders issued by the Directorate to Chennai may kindly be furnished. With a copy of the local orders issued in the office of the chief postmaster general Tamil Nadu circle Chennai 600002

12. A copy of the transfer TA bill may kindly be furnished."

Dy. Director & CPIO, Department of Post, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 23.10.2020 stating as follows:-

1. i)Transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to CPIO of PA Wing Directorate as the service book of the officer is maintained there.

ii)The officer has joined at Chennai on 01.10.2019.

2. Transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to CPIO of PA Wing Directorate as the service book of the officer is maintained there.

3, 9 & 10:- Transferred under Section 6 (3)of the RTI Act 2005 to CPIO of SEA-I Branch of DoT Hqrs. being the appointing authority.

3. Yes 4 & 12:- Exempted under section 8 (1)(j) of RTI, Act, 2005. 6 & 7:- Transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to Sr. Manager, MMS, Chennai for furnishing the information.

8. Transferred under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to CPIO of PA Wing Directorate as the service book of the officer is maintained there.

11. 1) Transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to CPIO of SEA-I Branch of DoT Hqrs being the appointing authority.

2) Transferred under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 to CPIO & AD(SB&FS) of O/o. CPMG, TN Circle, Chennai-2 with regards to orders issued by them, if any.

Subsequently, CPIO & AD(SB&FS) of O/o. CPMG, TN Circle, Chennai-2 furnished reply to the appellant on 09.11.2020 against point No. 11(2) of the RTI application, which is as follows:-

Point No. 11(2) :- The information sought for in c/w local order issued in r/o Ms. M. Anita" is not available with this CPIO & APMG (Staff), O/o the Chief PMG, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

Also, the Director (SEA) & CPIO informed the appellant on 10.12.2020 that:-

"..........para No.3, 9 & 10:- the educational qualification certificates and community certificate contains the address and other information of Smt. Anita which is a personal and third party information. Under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, a notice was given to Smt. Anita that the CPIO intends to disclose the information and invited her to make a submission in writing whether the information should be disclosed. Ms. Anita has denied permission for disclosing her personal information, and hence the said documents cannot be supplied under provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. However, the stay particulars of the officer since her joining in the department as available in this office is enclosed for your information in respect of Point No. 3 of the application."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.12.2020.

The CPIO/Accounts Officer (PEA) also furnished a reply to the appellant on 01.01.2021 against point nos. 1, 2 & 8 of the RTI application, which is as under:-

"..........Being third party private information, on receipt of conformation from the concerned officer in writing or orally whether the information should be disclosed or not, the requisite information may be provided."

In regard to appellant's First Appeal, FAA's order dated 18.03.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO's letter dated 10.12.2020 and further held that RTI is not the 3 platform for submission of allegations as levelled by the appellant regarding bogus/false community certificate submitted by Ms. M. Anita.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -

"...THE HON'BLE CIC NEW DELHI MANY OF ITS DECISIONS HAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN A PERSON IS HOLDING A PUBLIC OFFICE GETTTNG SALARY FROM THE PUBLIC EXCHEQUER AND DISCHARGING THE PUBLIC FUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS THERE FALLS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. THE ACT OF APPLYING FOR A JOB OR A SELECTION PROCESS IS NOT A PRIVATE ACTIVITY BUT IS CLEARLY PUBLIC ACITIVITY AND DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS OR THE PAPERS SUBMITTED TO OBTATN A JOB CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY.

I AM TO ADD THAT THE HON'BLE CIC W.R.T. APPEAL No: CIC/WB/A/2008/00669- SM DATED 19-05-2007 AND OTHER SIMILAR CASES HAS HEID THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE IS APPOINTED IN A PUBLIC AUTHORITY AGAINST THE SC/ST RESERVATION HIS/HER CASTE CERTIFICATE IS AN ESSENTIAL DOCUMENT AND SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. SIMILARLY, PERSONAL DETAILS ABOUT HER EDUCATIONAL QUATIFICATIONS AND SUCH OTHER DETAILS WHICH HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AS A MANDATORY REQUIRMENT FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. FURHTER IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SMT. M.ANITHA GM(PA&F) HAS SUBMTTTED A BOGUS /FALSE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE SO AS TO ENABLE HER TO ENJOY THE CONCESSIONS ORTGINALTY MEANT FOR THE POOR SC/ST. FURTHER THE ORIGINAL COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE AND REVENUE AUTHORITY COMMUNITY VERIFICATION REPORT SHOULD BE PASTED IN THE SERVTCE BOOK FIRST PAGE AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE HON'BLE MINSTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS. THIS IS NOT FOLLOWED.

ALL THE CPIO AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE REJECTED MY REQUEST STATING THAT IT IS PERSONAL AND THIRD PARTY INFORMATION AND REJECTED VIDE SECTION 11 OF THE RTI ACT 2OO5.IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS "PERSONAL" IN NATURE IN AS MUCH AS IT RELATES TO RELIGION,CASTE AND SUB CASTE OF THE THIRD PARTY BUT SUCH INFORMATION HAS BEEN CLEARTY PROVIDED IN THE COURSE OF PUBLIC ACTIVITY. WE MAY PERHAPS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ACCUSED OFFICER TO APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE CIC NEW DELHI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. THEREFORE, THE CPIO AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY STAND CAN NOT BE ACCEPTABLE....."

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Jospeh K. Mathew, Director & CPIO, Department of Post- New Delhi; Rajesh Kumar Singh, Under Secretary & Rep. of CPIO (Department of Telecommunication), New Delhi; Saranya Naveen, Accounts Officer(Adm.) & CPIO, Department of Post, Chennai; Kumara Krishnan, Asst. PMG (Staff & Treasury) & CPIO and S. B. John V Luke, Sr. Manager & CPIO, Department of Post, Chennai present through intra/inter video conference.

The CPIOs' submitted that reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant.

Decision:

The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records and after scrutinizing the contents of the RTI Application is of the considered view that the service related and personal records of the averred third party as sought by the Appellant contain the elements of personal information of third party which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 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 5 public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

(Emphasis Supplied) However, by ignoring the above said aspect, the CPIOs' have erred in providing sufficient personal details of the third party ignoring the fact that said third party had denied permission to share her information under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIOs' are advised to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI Applications in future and always follow due process of law as envisaged under RTI Act, before parting with any third party's personal information which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal that details of public officers should be made public is inconsequential. Thus, no relief can be ordered in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission