Central Information Commission
Shri C. L. Sharma vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 24 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00419 dated 12.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri C. L. Sharma
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Decision announced: 24.8.2009
Facts:
By an application of 12.9.07 Shri C. L. Sharma of Piplani, Bhopal applied to the Chairman, UPSC seeking the following information:
"ii) Law authorizing the officer with his designation to sign on the UPSC advise No. 3/646/2004-SI dated 17.5.2005.
iii) Authentication of power vested to Shri Manoj Pandey Deputy Secretary to sign advise in respect of JTS/IPS Group A Officer in rule 14 Disc. Case No. 17-6/MC/2000/Vig.
iv) Note sheets of File No. 5/646/2004-SI in respect of disc-case No. 17/6/MC/2000/Vig. Put up for advise of the Chairman UPSC New Delhi & his orders.
v) Minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on dt. 25, 26, 29 & 30th June 1998 for the year 1997-98 for promotion to Junior Time Scale Group0 A from Postal Service Group B.
vi) Minutes of the meeting held on 26th to 28th June 2000 & 20.7.2000 for promotion to JTS Group A from PS Group B. UPSC File No. 1/74/17-A/99-AP 3. DG (P) Department of Post New Delhi reference No. 4-71/98/SPG.
vii) Minutes of the meeting of DPC for the year 1999-2000 for promotion of JTS Group A from PS Group B.
viii) Minutes of the meeting of DPC for the year 2000-2001 held on 26th to 28th June 2000 for promotion to JTS Group A from PS Group B.
ix) Minutes of the meeting of the DPC for the year 2001-02 held on 18th & 19th December, 2001 for promotion to JTS Group A from PS Group B.
x) Vigilance Clearance Certificate furnished to UPSC in respect of the applicant (C.L.Sharma) by the DG (P) Department of 1 Post, New Delhi for the DPC of the year 2001-02 held on 18/19.12.2001.
xi) Integrity Certificate furnished to UPSC in respect of the applicant by the DG (P) Dep't. of Post New Delhi for the DPC of year 2001-02 held on 18/19.12.2001."
To this Shri C. L. Sharma received a response on 2.11.07 with which he was not satisfied moving him into first appeal before Khwaja M. Shahid, Jt. Secretary, UPSC on 20.11.07, as follows:
"In respect of their contention regarding divulsion (sic) of information, the applicant has never applied for getting the information in respect of the other person except his own viz DG (Posts). Note received with disciplinary case and note sheets put up to the Chairman, UPSC. These are not banned under RTI Act 2005. There was no difficulty in providing the information pertaining to the applicant only instead of providing information collectively for all persons. In view of this the applicant is of the opinion that the rejection of part of the application is not justified and hence this appeal to your office."
To this Sh. Khwaja M. Shahid Jt. Secretary in his very reasoned order of 12.12.07, has responded as follows:
"It is evident that the information in respect of copy of the DG (Posts) either mentioned by the appellant (without any date or reference number in his 1st Appeal) is not available with the CPIO in Services-1 Branch and all the relevant information pertaining to him in respect of particular disciplinary case of the Charged Officer, appellant here, available with the CPIO in the note sheets submitted to Hon'ble Chairman, UPSC has already been provided to the Appellant. Therefore, there is no case to issue any specific direction to the CPIO in Services-1 Branch of UPSC to give any further information to the appellant as prayed by him in his 1st Appeal dated 20.11.2007 (received in UPSC on 26.11.2007) at 5.00 p.m. The first appeal of the appellant is accordingly disposed of."
This Shri Shahid has decided on the basis of the following :
"whatever information, facts, analysis, reasoning and arguments in respect of the appellant as charged officer in the particular disciplinary case is concerned, the same have been included in the advice letter sent to the President/DA in accordance to the relevant Articles of the Constitution of India and Rules/Instructions on the subject. This advice letter has already been provided to the 2 Charged Officer i.e. appellant here. Therefore, all relevant information/facts pertaining to the appellant have already been provided to the appellant."
Shri Shahid has come to this conclusion on the grounds that "the main argument of the appellant in this first appeal is that he wants information in respect of his own and not of other persons and it's rejection is not justified as it is not banned under the RTI Act 2005. The appellant has not quoted or referred any particular provision or Section(s) of RTI Act 2005 in support of his above particular argument."
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 24.8.09. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Bhopal Shri C. L. Sharma Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Y. P. Gupta, CPIO Shri R. K. Sinha, Appellate Authority Shri R. K. Sinha, present Appellate Authority, UPSC submitted that in a recent decision of this Commission dated 10.7.09 in Sh. Mohinder Kumar vs. UPSC, this Commission has held as follows:
"The information asked for relates to the file notings containing the views and opinions of various officials, who have contributed to the process of the conduct of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the charged officer. While such an action is taken by a public authority against its employee is largely in the public interest, the request for disclosure of the details by the charged official is mainly for promotion of personal interest. It is accepted that the note sheets of a file are covered under the definition of "information"
and, therefore, a CPIO is free to invoke section 8 (1) of the Act for denial of information for which valid justification has to be provided.
In the context of the disciplinary proceeding, which is initiated in the public interest as per the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, the CPIO has justly invoked Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act for denial of access to the file notings containing opinion and advices rendered by the officials of the respondent."
3The file noting in this case would be noting of personal interest and not of public interest. Appellant Shri Sharma on the other hand submitted that UPSC's information is only advisory and that he should be given both copies of correspondence with the Department of Posts in his case together with noting regarding his own case.
DECISION NOTICE In this case, as pointed out to appellant by Appellate Authority Sh. Khwaja M. Shahid, the records of the disciplinary case of the appellant Shri Sharma have already been returned to the Dep't. of Posts, as already intimated to the appellant by the CPIO. Appellant may obtain copies of these documents from the concerned Department and not from the UPSC, since it is that Dep't that holds the information. On the other hand, Appellate Authority has pointed out that the appellant has not quoted or referred to any provisions in support of his arguments that information regarding only his own case be provided separately from the larger information held. In such a case the principle of severability as contained Sec. 10(1) will apply. Sec. 10(1) reads as follows:
"Sec. 10(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act i and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information. "
The contention of Shri R. K. Sinha in the argument that u/s 8(1)(j), it is not only the personal information which would amount to invasion of privacy that is exempt from disclosure, but also of such personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. In this case, he submitted that the CPIO is not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information. We find such a contention flawed. In the above sub-section of Sec 4 8(1) what is key is that even information that is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) may be disclosed, if the CPIO is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure. This does not work in reverse to claim that because information is required that is personal to the applicant, the larger public interest justifies its non-disclosure. In this case the information sought is clearly information on public activity and hence of public interest, since it concerns noting on a file that is a public, not a personal document. The information sought in this case is therefore essentially quite different to that sought in the Decision of this Commission quoted above, which for the above reasons cannot apply in this case.
Under the circumstances, CPIO Deputy Secretary Services-I Branch UPSC is directed to provide the information sought with regard to noting after applying the principle of severability excluding all information other than that which concerns appellant Shri Sharma alone in providing the information sought.
There is also the question of delay in response, which remains unexplained to our satisfaction in the hearing. CPIO Shri Y.P. Gupta will, therefore, show cause as to why he should not be held liable for penalty @ Rs. 250/- a day from 12.10.07 when the information sought by appellant Shri Sharma became due, to 2.11.07, a total of 22 days, thus amounting to Rs. 5500/- . He may submit his explanation in writing to this Commission by or before 10.9.09. The appeal is thus allowed in part.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 24.8.2009 5 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 24.8.2009 i Underlined by us for emphasis 6