Central Information Commission
Sujit Kumar Bala vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 5 July, 2019
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/IOCLD/A/2018/612079-BJ +
CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/612849-BJ +
CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/636059-BJ
Mr. Sujit Kumar Bala
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Marketing Division, Head Office
India Oil Bhawan, G - 9
Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East)
Mumbai - 400051
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2019
Date of Decision : 05.07.2019
ORDER
RTI 1: CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/612079-BJ Date of RTI application 27.10.2017 CPIO's response 24.11.2017 Date of the First Appeal Nil First Appellate Authority's response 15.01.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points in respect of whether overall ratings were recorded in the Appraisal documents from 2005-06 to 2008-09, and the numerical score wise overall rating band for the appraisal year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the format mentioned by the Appellant in his application, and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 24.11.2017, provided a point-wise reply for the information sought by the Appellant, wherein, denied the disclosure of information for Points no. 03 and 05, on the ground that the information sought is exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Page 1 of 7 RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide his order dated 15.01.2018, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
RTI 2: CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/612849-BJ Date of RTI application 11.11.2017 CPIO's response 12.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal Nil First Appellate Authority's response 19.02.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 Points in respect of the overall performance rating of the E grade officers mentioned in the RTI application i.e., Sri Krishnendu Mukherjee, Shri Jamuna Prasad Sharma, Shri Shashi Chaudhary and all E grade officers under ED (Lubes)) in 2011-12 and 2012-13 for knowing the inter-se comparison, whether Bell Curve Appraisal System was applicable prior to the year 2009-10 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 12.12.2017, denied the disclosure of information for Point no. 01 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 19.02.2018, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
RTI 3: CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/636059-BJ Date of RTI application 25.01.2018 CPIO's response 23.02.2018 Date of the First Appeal Nil First Appellate Authority's response 23.04.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 Points in respect of DPC year wise position of net eligible candidates, Number of Officers promoted, cut off mark upto which employees were promoted, the Appellant's position along with the score for the DPC years and Grade as mentioned in his application, DPC Ranking Sheet in DPC 2012 from Grade E to Grade F with details of marks under different parameters alongwith his score on the said parameters and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 23.02.18, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant, wherein, for Point no.02, the information sought by the Appellant was denied on the ground that it was exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and for Points no. 03- 06, the information was again denied on the ground that it was not being maintained in compiled form and compilation of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the corporation, and hence could not be furnished as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, Page 2 of 7 vide its order dated 23.04.2018, while concurring with the other response of the CPIO directed to provide the information sought in Point no.03.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Nishant Prasad, DGM (HRD) through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Kapil, Network Engineer NIC studio at Kolkata confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of an email from the Appellant dated 14.06.2019 wherein it was stated that the High Court of Calcutta had also fixed the next date of hearing his Writ Petition on 04.07.2019. Hence, it was requested to reschedule the hearing and if the same was not possible then he would send his written submission. In response, the DR to IC-BJ vide email dated 18.06.2019 invited the attention of the Appellant to para 7 of the notice of hearing regarding non-adjournment of hearing. Hence the Appellant was requested to depute his representative in case he was not able to attend the hearing and that the case would be heard as scheduled. The Respondent with regard to Appeal No CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/612079-BJ submitted that prior to the year 2009-2010, the performance rating of individual officers was based on percentage restriction within a defined group and hence was corresponding to a variable score range which was subsequently changed after 2009- 2010 when definite range of scores relating to ePMS appraisal rating was introduced. As regards the other information sought in question 02 and 03, the same was denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to Appeal No CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/612849-BJ, it was submitted that point-wise response was provided to the Appellant. However, the performance rating of the officers mentioned in the RTI application was not disclosed since it was the personal information of Third Party employees. Similarly, in Appeal No CIC/IOCLD/A/2018/636059-BJ, barring personal information of employees, other details were already provided by the CPIO. On being queried if similar issues were being adjudicated by the Appellant before any Court of Law / Dispute Resolution Forum, the Respondent replied in the affirmative and stated that related issues were pending adjudication before the High Court of Kolkata wherein the Respondent Public Authority was also a party.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
Page 3 of 735..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held 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 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."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
"13......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. 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 of 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."Page 4 of 7
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held 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 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
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
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, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
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."
The Commission further observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 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:
"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.Page 5 of 7
This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Page 6 of 7DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(S. S. Rohilla) (एस.एस. रो ह ला)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 05.07.2019
Page 7 of 7