Central Information Commission
Anup Sharma vs University Of Delhi on 24 August, 2018
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/UODEL/A/2017/149541-BJ
Mr. Anup Sharma,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Sri Venkateshwar College,
Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi 110021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.08.2018
Date of Decision : 24.08.2018
Date of RTI application 13.01.2017
CPIO's response 06.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 06.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 20.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points (A to D) relating to one Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das (Gas Mechanic, since retired), his name / father's name as per college records, reasons for suspension from job during the period 21.11.2011 to 31.12.2014, detailed charges leveled against him, etc. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.04.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 20.06.2017, while concurring with the response of the CPIO stated that time limits may not have been complied by the CPIO due to pressing academic/ administrative commitments.
Page 1 of 3HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kr. Bansal Appellant's representative; Respondent: Absent;
The Respondent remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. The Appellant's representative contended that the information sought had not been received by him. Articulating further in the matter, it was submitted that there was a dispute pending with the appropriate forum in respect of the employee of the College whose information was being sought. He remained dissatisfied with the reply and stated that the matter was also subjudice in Delhi High Court. On perusal of the records, it was noted that the CPIO/FAA had responded suitably and denied information relating to the Third Party.
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."
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement of UPSC vs. R.K. Jain, LPA No. 618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 wherein it was held as under:
".............the ratio of the dicta aforesaid of the Supreme Court is that the disciplinary orders and the documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings are personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) and the disclosure of which normally has no relationship to any public activities or public interest and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a Page 2 of 3 decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible.
The Appellant was unable to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant's representative and in the light of aforesaid decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 24.08.2018
Page 3 of 3