Beena Rajesh vs Chief Commissioner Of Custms & Central ... on 22 February, 2023

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Beena Rajesh vs Chief Commissioner Of Custms & Central ... on 22 February, 2023

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/CCEVD/A/2022/624331

Beena Rajesh                                       अपीलकता /Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Chief Commissioner,
Central GST and Central Excise,
Vadodara, RTI Cell, 2nd Floor,
Central Excise Building. Vadodara Zone,
Race Course, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007,
Gujarat.                                        ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   20/02/2023
Date of Decision                  :   20/02/2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   16/11/2021
CPIO replied on                   :   02/12/2021
First appeal filed on             :   24/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order   :   31/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   28/04/2022

Information sought

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2021 seeking the following information:

"(1). COPIES OF MINUTES OF DPC FOR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT GR.B HELD FOR THE YEAR 2017-18AND SUPPLEMENTARY DPC FOR YEAR 2017-18.

(2). PLEASE PROVIDE COPY OF OFFICE NOTE DATED 19.06.2017 IN RESPECT OF MINUTES OF DPC FOR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT GR.B HELD FOR YEAR 2017-18 AND OFFICE NOTE IN RESPECT OF SUPPLEMENTARY DPC FOR THE YEAR 2017-18.

(3). IF ANY OFFICER(S) HAS REFUSED THEIR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT GR.B AMONGST THE OFFICERS (INSPECTORS) PROMOTED IN DPC HELD FOR YEAR 2017-18 AND SUPPLEMENTARY DPC FOR YEAR 2017-18.

(3)(a). IF YES, PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE ABOVE OFFICER(S) ALONGWITH DETAILS OF THEIR DATE OF REFUSAL ACCEPTED BY THE HON'BLE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CGST, VADODARA ZONE."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on02.12.2021 stating as under:

"1. Minutes in respect of DPC & Supplementary DPC showing details of Commissionerate, Seniority No., Date of Birth, Grading etc., contain service details of the employees which fall within the ambit of 'Personal information' under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, further in terms of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, the Department holds such information in fiduciary relationship with its employees, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Therefore, the information sought by the applicant cannot be provided in terms of section 8(1)(e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

2. Copies of Office Note dated 19.06.2017 along with Office Note of Supplementary DPC 2017-18, hiding personal information of other officers, is attached.

3. Yes 3 (a). Information sought, fall under the -third parry- information. Hence cannot be provided section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated24.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 31.01.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Milind Katdare, Asst. Commissioner & CPIO present through video- conference.

The Appellant expressed her dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO under the garb of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that she was a part of Supplementary DPC and was serving in the Vadodara Zone of Respondent Authorityas a Superintendent. She further stated that in a similar case, the minutes of DPC for promotion of Tax Assistants pertaining to 21.03.2017 had already been divulged toapplicant earlier . However, in this case it has been wrongly denied on the plea of fiduciary relationship clause.

The CPIO submitted that although the information had been denied to the Appellant at first instance; however, he agreed to provide the relevant information concerning the Appellant only after masking details of other third party's officers by taking shelter of Section 10 of RTI Act.

Decision:

The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the blanket denial of information by the CPIO (except for point no. 3(a))under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act without considering the fact that Appellant has sought information related to her own DPC where her name was also considered and for which she has every constitutional right to know for the purpose of her own defense, is not appropriate. The only pertinent exemption from disclosure of information against said point appears to be with respect to the records of other third party officers and names and identifying particulars of the Committee Member(s) and/ or other officers which may be reflected on the noting /comments/review committee report and cannot be divulged considering the exemptions envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

In view of the foregoing and considering the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of points no. 1-3and provide relevant available information concerning the Appellant only which will suffice the information sought on the said point after masking the names and identifying particulars of 3 the other third party officers, if any, which may figure in the noting /comments/ report and cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the information related to the personal information of third parties, as the said provision states as under:

10. Severability.--

(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 and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.

The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

Now, as regards details of officers sought by the Appellant at point no. 3 (a), denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is apt and is in lines with the spirit of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."

In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 4 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; 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.The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission