Central Information Commission
Hilaluddin vs Indian Council Of Forestry Research And ... on 23 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/101329/00713
File no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/101329
In the matter of:
Hilaluddin
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education,
PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248 006
Uttrakhand
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/10/2017 CPIO replied on : 18/10/2017 First appeal filed on : 26/10/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 01/12/2017 Second Appeal dated : 26/12/2017 Date of Hearing : 23/05/2019 Date of Decision : 23/05/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Raman Nautiyal, Scientist E & CPIO, Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, Shri S Dhawan, Course Coordinator & CPIO, FRI deemed University, Shri S K Thomas, Deputy Conservator of Forests, FRI.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copies of Leave Records (EL/EoL/Study Leave/Long Leave) of any other kind availed by the following officers since respective dates mentioned 1 against their names and till completion of their deputation to ICFRE and/ or its affiliated institutes and/ or centres.
A. Dr. Sudhanshu Gupta, IFS - Since 01.09.1988 till completion of deputation.
B. Dr. Sandeep Tripathi, IFS - Since 01.03.2008 till completion of deputation.
C. Dr. Neelu Gera, IFS - Since 01.09.2003 till completion of deputation. D.Dr. A. Anil Kumar, IFS - Since 01.09.2005 till completion of deputation. E. Dr. S. Singhsit, IFS - Since 01.09.2002 till completion of deputation. F. Dr. G.S. Rawat, IFS - Since 01.05.1998 till completion of deputation. G. Dr. R.B. Lal, IFS - Since 28.09.1993 till completion of deputation. H. And others.
2. Inspection of the above original records after delivery of above dossiers on mutually agreed date and time.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as incomplete information pertaining to three officers only has been provided to him. He submitted that he wants the complete information as sought by the appellant in his RTI application.
The CPIO submitted that whatever information was available with them, the same has been provided to the appellant. He further submitted that since most of the officers have been repatriated from the Council, their leave account and service books were not available with their office and hence asked the appellant to visit the office and inspect the records as available on the website of this Council and whatever the leave records he desired, the same will be provided to him except the reason for leave as it falls under the category of personal information.
On an enquiry by the Commission from the appellant whether he has availed the offer of inspection, the appellant submitted that by virtue of letter dated 13.10.2017, the Accounts Officer has clearly mentioned that the records are 2 File no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/101329 not available and hence the question of inspecting the documents does not arise. At this point, the CPIO submitted that they have electronic system of all the leave records which is not available to all the persons and hence they offered inspection to the appellant.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the CPIO has provided some information to the appellant vide his letters dated 01.11.2017 & 13.11.2017. The reply of the CPIO is grossly inapt as he has provided such information to the appellant that pertained to third parties. The same should have been denied after following the procedure as laid down under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Commission draws the attention of the FAA to the judgment dated 31.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 which is relevant , wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act in service matters of government employees has been further amplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is 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. (xxx) "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, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-3
'12. 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 organisation 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 or 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.
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..."
Decision:
The aforesaid ratio is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant matter and in view of this, no further action lies.
The Commission admonishes the concerned CPIOs for providing information to the Appellant without invoking the exemption clause of Section 8 (1)j of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4