Central Information Commission
Komal Giri vs Ordnance Factory Board on 9 March, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/OFBKO/C/2022/623758
CIC/OFBKO/A/2022/632636
In the matter of
Komal Giri
... Complainant / Appellant
VS
CPIO
Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination and Services),
New Delhi Office,
Defence Office Complex, C-Block, 6th Floor,
K.G. Marg, New Delhi - 110001
... Respondent
File No. : 623758 632636 RTI application filed on : 08/02/2022 08/02/2022 CPIO replied on : 31/03/2022 31/03/2022 First appeal filed on : Not on record 30/04/2022 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record 20/05/2022 Complaint / Second Appeal filed on : 25/04/2022 14/06/2022 Date of Hearing : 07/03/2023 Date of Decision : 07/03/2023 The following were present: Complainant / Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Faisal Javaid, Asst. Director/CPIO-Present over VC Information Sought:
The Complainant/Appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide attendance record (both Biometric and manual) and leave record of all the officers and staff working in the erstwhile Ordnance 1 Factory Board, New Delhi office for the period from 01/01/2017 to 30/06/2018.
Grounds for Complaint/Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Submissions made by Complainant / Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant/appellant in her second appeal had submitted that she was working as a Junior Translation Officer in the office of respondent authority. She stated that the information sought for was not provided by the CPIO, therefore, she requested for disclosure of the information. By way of complaint dated 25.04.2022, she also requested the Commission to take appropriate action against the CPIO. She however remained absent despite due service of the notice of hearing delivered to her on 25.02.2023 vide speed post no. ED301383375IN.
The CPIO while referring to his written submissions dated 28.02.2023 submitted that the requested for information was not provided as the same was barred from disclosure under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further stated that the complainant/appellant was using the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to settle her personal grudges/grievances with the respondent authority.
Observations:
The Commission at the outset clubbed together the instant complaint and second appeal for hearing and final disposal as both of these emanated from a common RTI application dated 08.02.2022.
On a perusal of the facts of the cases at hand, the Commission noted that the denial of the attendance and leave record of all employees was justified in the light of Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. This was personal information of the employees concerned and expressly barred from disclosure unless the appellant/complainant exhibits involvement of public interest. She has failed to exhibit involvement of public interest in the instant cases. The Commission placed reliance on the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, (2013) 1 SCC 212 :2
"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 public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
Therefore, the Commission opined that the denial of attendance and leave record of employees is justified in law.
Apropos the contents of the complaint dated 25.04.2022, the Commission observed that the instant matter was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section-18. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, in a decision in the matter of Kripa Shanker v. Central Information Commission, W. P. (C) No. 8315/ 2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
"....13... Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is of the view that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequently found to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause."
Therefore, the complaint is not justified and the same is not actionable as per law.3
Decision:
For all the reasons recorded above, no adverse action against the CPIO is warranted under the provisions of the Section-18 of the RTI Act, 2005 in the Case No. CIC/OFBKO/C/2022/623758.
In Case No. CIC/OFBKO/A/2022/632636, the Commission holds that no further action lies as the information sought for is barred from disclosure under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The instant complaint and second appeal are disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4