Central Information Commission
Yadeendra Babu T. D. vs Konkan Railway on 1 May, 2019
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/KRAIL/A/2017/162575
Yadeendra Babu T. D. ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Railways, ... ितवादी /Respondent
Konkan Railway Corporation
Limited, CBD Belapur, Navi
Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400614
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.03.2017 FA : 02.05.2017 SA : 06.09.2017
CPIO : 10.04.2017 FAO : 05.06.2017 Hearing : 26.04.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Railways, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Maharashtra seeking information on 14 points, including, inter-alia: (i) reason for non-deduction of his monthly contribution to CPF @ Rs. 3660 from his salary during the period from 28.01.2012 to 30.06.2012; and (ii) reason for not taking action on his aforesaid applications addressed to FA&CAO & CPO/KRCL to deduct the amount required for Page 1 of 6 regularization of the CPF from his salary for the month of Aug. 2Ol4 as KRCL had erroneously deducted VPF contribution from monthly salary and sent to FA&CAO, W. Rly. for the above period., etc.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO/FAA, the appellant filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Commission on the ground that satisfactory, complete and correct information has not been provided to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information to him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri N M Telan, Chief Manager along with Shri Arun Mehta, FAA participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent as per his RTI application. During the hearing, the appellant raised his grievance related to his PF amount and other related issues.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 10.04.2017, complete point-wise reply/information has been provided to the appellant. The reply was read out during the hearing point-wise. The respondent further apprised that the information sought by the appellant on point nos. II (A), (C), III (A) are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it is personal information of third party.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, agrees with the reply/information given to the appellant as per his RTI application. The information sought by the appellant on point nos. II (A), (C), III (A) are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it Page 2 of 6 is personal information of third party. In this regard, the Commission 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."
7. The Commission 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 Page 3 of 6 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. 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.Page 4 of 6
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.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 26.04.2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),
M/o. Railways, CPIO,
Konkan Railway Corporation Limited,
Regd Office: Belapur Bhavan,
Sector-11, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400614
2. Shri Yadeendra Babu T. D.
Page 6 of 6