Central Information Commission
Shri Gopal Soni vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 25 March, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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. CIC/NIACL/A/2019/646024
Shri Gopal Soni ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
New India Assurance Company
Limited, Jaipur
CPIO
New India Assurance Company
Limited, Fort, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04-03-2019 FA : 06-04-2019 SA : 23-07-2019
CPIO : 13-03-2019 FAO : 15-07-2019 Hearing : 18-03-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), New India Assurance Company Limited, New Delhi seeking following information:-
1. "Information of the NIACL Public Servants promoted despite history of corruption/criminal Charges w.e.f. 01-01-2008:-
(a) Full Names & designation (including alias, if any).
(b) Date of court order including full reference number.
(c) Date of departmental order of promotion.
2. Information of names and designation and salary roll no. of NIACL decision makers who (a) recommended/(b) followed the directions of higher authority (c) implemented promotion of doubtful integrity officers(s) as per above para number 1.
3. (a) Total number of vigilance enquiries conducted in respect of complaints of the applicant against abuse in the NIACL. (b) Information of date wise vigilance report of the vigilance officer, Page 1 of 4 NIACL Jaipur actually sent to Chief Vigilance officer NIACL, pertaining to directly to applicant.
4. Head wise amount of public money, salary, arrears, increments, released to one of the officers of NIACL Jaipur of salary roll number 26019 w.e.f. 01 December 2018 afterwards."
2. The CPIO responded on 13-03-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 06-04-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 15- 07-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri Gopal Soni attended the hearing through video conferencing. Ms. Ranjana Nighot, CPIO & Mr. Amandeep Singh Oberoi, CPIO/Jaipur participated in the hearing representing the respondent(s) through audio/video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant contended that the officials of NIACL have been promoted despite their involvement in corruption/criminal charges and therefore, it is in public interest to disclose their details.
5. The respondent(s) contended that the performance of an employee in an organization is a matter between the employer and employee covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212. Therefore, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the sought for information. On point no. 4, he contended that the information in the manner sought by the appellant is scattered across various files and collation of information in the manner sought by the appellant would involve compilation from voluminous records by a significant number of officials and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority from the efficient discharge of its normal functions. Therefore, it attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, which reads as under:-
"(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the details of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee of the public authority cannot be provided to the appellant, as it is a matter between employer and employees covered by the Page 2 of 4 ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"13. 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 organization 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."
7. In view of the foregoing, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the appellant has not shown any larger public interest in the matter and hence, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is being upheld.
8. This Commission further observes that the information in the manner sought by the appellant on point no. 4 such as salary, arrears, increments etc. of an individual employee requires compilation & interpretation of various rules/documents from multiple files scattered across various offices which if undertaken would cause disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. Therefore, the CPIO is not expected to compile such data. This is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-
"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, tranquillity 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 Page 3 of 4 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 prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date : 18-03-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
New India Assurance Company Limited
Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Nehru Place
Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015
2. CPIO
New India Assurance Company Limited
Regd. & Head Office
New India Assurance Building,
87 MG Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001
3. Shri Goapl Soni
Page 4 of 4