Central Information Commission
Mrc Muralidharan vs Icar on 14 May, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000319, CIC/SH/A/2014/000725, CIC/SH/A/2014/001147,
CIC/SH/A/2014/001315, CIC/SH/A/2014/001593, CIC/SH/A/2014/000771,
CIC/SH/A/2014/002368, CIC/SH/A/2014/002484, and CIC/SH/C/2014/000318
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18) and (19)
Date of hearing : 14th May 2015
Date of decision : 14th May 2015
Name of the Complainant/ : Shri C. Muralidharan,
Appellant ED (F&A), NFDB, Pillar No: 235, PVNR
Expressway SVPNPA Post, Hyderabd
500052
Name of the Public : i)Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
ii)Central Public Information Officer, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Boad, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan1 Pusa, New Delhi10012 The Complainant/Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
i) Shri V.D. Naniwadekar, Dy. Secretary, ICAR
ii) Shri Rajeshwar Dayal, Under Secretary, ICAR
iii) Shri Ravi Ranjan, CPIO, ICAR
iv) Shri N.K. Jindal, US, ASRB
CIC/SH/C/2014/000319
v) Shri Ravi Chauhan, SO, ICAR
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
These files contain two complaints and seven appeals regarding the RTI applications dated 26.3.2014, 29.1.2014, 13.3.2014, 12.3.2014, 9.4.2014, 1.3.2014, 15.5.2014, 31.7.2014 and 27.3.2014, filed by the Complainant/Appellant, seeking information on various issues. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC with complaints/appeals in all the cases.
2. Regarding the RTI application dated 26.3.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000319), the Complainant stated that the information has not been provided. On perusal of the application, we see that the Complainant sought information regarding a representation made by a third party employee against placement of yet another employee in the final select list. The Complainant stated that he needs this information, because the matter forms part of the chargesheet in ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him. In the above context, we note that since the disciplinary proceedings are still in progress, the Complainant can seek such information as he needs from the disciplinary authority. We do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings by CIC/SH/C/2014/000319 ordering release of the information sought by the Complainant. In view of the foregoing, further enquiry into this complaint is not considered necessary.
3. With regard to the RTI application dated 29.1.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000725), the Appellant stated that information has not been provided on point Nos. 7, 8 and 9. We note that at point No. 7 he sought copies of proceedings of all board meetings held during the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. He has not specified any particular meeting, where a subject of direct interest to him might have been considered. Since the board meetings would have considered various issues, containing a good deal of information, that cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, we would refrain from directing the Respondents to disclose any information in this case. At point No.8, the Appellant sought copies of all the correspondence between the ICAR and ARSB in connection with the conduct of examinations and final selection of ARS scientists in 2009 and 2010. Since such correspondence would contain information regarding third party candidates, who appeared in the examinations, we would refrain from ordering release of any information in this case also. With regard to point No.9, the Respondents submitted that the file containing the Dr. V.N. Sharda Committee Report was under submission to the CVC when the RTI application was filed. However, subsequently, on receipt of the file, CIC/SH/C/2014/000319 the information in response to point No. 9 has been provided to the Appellant as part of the charges against him in the disciplinary proceedings. The Appellant acknowledged having received this information. In view of the foregoing, no further action is necessary in the case of the RTI application dated 29.1.2014.
4. Regarding the RTI applications dated 13.3.2014 and 12.3.2014 (file Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/001147 and CIC/SH/A/2014/001315), the Appellant stated that he has received the information sought in the same and the matter may be closed.
5. Regarding the RTI application dated 9.4.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001593), the Respondents stated that the information concerning action against certain third party officials, sought by the Appellant, has become available to him as part of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, because the third party employees in question are also being proceeded against in the same proceedings. The Appellant acknowledged having received the information.
CIC/SH/C/2014/000319
6. With regard to the RTI application dated 1.3.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000771), the Appellant submitted that he has received the information and the matter may be closed.
7. Regarding the RTI application dated 15.5.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/A/2014/0002368), the Appellant stated that information in response to points (D) and (E) of this application has not been provided. We note that the information sought at the above points was regarding officers of the public authority, against whom major penalty proceedings were initiated and on whom a major penalty was imposed. In the above context, we note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in its decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734/2012) : "13. 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 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 CIC/SH/C/2014/000319 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." The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him at points (D) and (E). In view of the foregoing, we note that no further action is pending on the RTI application dated 15.5.2014.
8. With regard to the RTI application dated 31.7.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002484), the Appellant stated that the information concerning DPC proceedings/ notes sought by him has not been provided. The Respondents stated that the file concerning the DPC proceedings was under submission to the higher authorities, when the RTI application was filed. In response to our query, the Appellant stated that his name was not considered in the DPC proceedings, but was in the consideration zone. In the above context, we note the following observation of the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 8.7.2014 in THDC India Ltd. Vs. R.K. Rathuri [W.P. (C) 903/2013] : "13. Consequently, this Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their CIC/SH/C/2014/000319 interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information. This Court is also of the opinion that third party information can only be disclosed if a finding of a larger public interest being involved is givn by CIC and further if third party procedure as prescribed under Sections 11 (1) and 19 (4) of the RTI Act is followed."
The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information sought by him in this case. Accordingly, there is no need for any further action on the RTI application dated 31.7.2014.
9. Regarding the RTI application dated 27.3.2014 (file No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000318), the Complainant stated that he has received the information sought by him and the matter may be closed.
10. With the above observations, the two complaints and seven appeals on the above mentioned files are disposed of.
11. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner CIC/SH/C/2014/000319 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/C/2014/000319