Central Information Commission
Neelam Paul vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 26 February, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344
Neelam Paul ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Panjab University,
UT of Chandigarh ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02.01.2024 FA : 15.02.2024 SA : 03.06.2024
CPIO : 15.01.2024 FAO : 05.03.2024 Hearing : 21.01.2026
Date of Decision: 25.02.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.01.2024, before the CPIO, Panjab University, Chandigarh, seeking information as under:
"I was promoted from Associate Professor (Stage 4) to Professor (Stage-5) w.e.f 26.03.2009 vide Letter No.3149-60/Estt I dated 04.06.2020. Till date, no financial benefits granted towards my promotion due to illogical, repetitive and un-warranted objections. After having exhausted all other options, I am now constrained to seek the present status Page 1 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344 of the same using my right granted under "The Right to Information Act, 2005" with a request to provide me certified copies of information and documents as under:-
1. Disclose the name(s) of all the officers and officials with whom my case has been lying pending since the office orders issued on 04.06.2020 till date, the period (with dates) for which each of them retained this case and the action taken by the dealings and file noting by each of them.
2. Disclose the time period for which a University Officer/Official can retain the above-mentioned case files of faculty without any visible action or file noting.
3. Certified copies of all information, documents and justifications for delay on record of this University based upon which my case been delayed for such a long period.
4. Disclose the name with designation of Panjab University Officers and Officials who have levied any objection, along with certified copies of objection so raised."
2. The CPIO & Dy. Registrar (Estt.), Panjab University, Chandigarh replied to the RTI Application on 15.01.2024, as under:
"1. The Information sought against the Sr.No.1 & 4 cannot be provided and same is exempted from the disclosure under section 8(1)(e), (g), (j) of RTI act,2005.
2. The Information does not exist,
3. The Information sought is not specific and in the absence of details, no such Information cannot be provided."
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO in respect of points 1,3 & 4 of the RTI Application, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2024, before the FAA & Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The FAA, vide order dated 05.03.2024, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved that the FAA merely endorsed the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.06.2024, inter alia, stating as under:
Page 2 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344"That the appellant is presently the Chairperson, Department of Music of Panjab University, Chandigarh. The appellant was promoted from the post of Associate Professor (Stage-4) to Professor (Stage-5) with effect from 26th March 2009 by Panjab University vide its letter No. 3149-60/Estt.I dated 04-06-2020. The appellant is thus occupying the Post of Professor since 2009, but availing the pay of the lower post (Associate Professor) till date, and the financial benefits accrued on account of promotion from Associate Professor to Professor have not been paid by the Panjab University for the last 15 years till date, due to illogical, repetitive, unwarranted objections. The appellant had, therefore, sought information on 4 points to find out as to why the financial benefits of 15 years have been denied to the appellant despite having been elevated to the post of Professor by the competent authority of Panjab University.
xxx Exemptions claimed under Section 8 in the instant case include fiduciary relationship u/s 8(1)(e) one which endanger the life or physical safety of any person u/s 8(1)(g) and personal information causing unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual u/s 8(1)(j) Both the PIO as well as AA have, however, failed to justify as to how records related to promotion of a person without financial benefits involve any fiduciary relationship and whose physical safety and life would be endangered and how it would be endangered if the records related to injustice with the appellant become open. How the records related to denial of financial benefits to the appellant constitute personal information of someone else?..."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant was present and assisted by Rajindra K Singla through video conference. On behalf of the Respondent, Ritu Sharma, AR (Estt.) & Rep. of CPIO attending the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant narrated the background of seeking information through the RTI Application as mentioned under para 4 above.
Page 3 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/1183447. The Respondent submitted that as per the RTI Act, the information sought relates to third parties and therefore it was denied under Section 8(1)(j), (e) & (g) of the RTI Act. Upon a query from the Commission asking the CPIO to justify the invocation of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, no tenable explanation/justification was forthcoming. However, it was submitted that as on date, the grievance of the Appellant does not survive, as all arrears have been paid to her on 05.12.2025, after removing audit objections that were raised in April, 2025.
8. The Appellant denied receipt of the payment of arrears and alleged that she had personally enquired about the same from the University and she was assured that the Cheque for the payment will be issued but she has not received the Cheque or the payment till date.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the instant second appeal lies against the denial of the information in respect of points 1 & 4 of the RTI Application by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(e), (g) & (j) of the RTI Act. The denial is appropriate to the extent where names and other identifying particulars of the third parties have been sought by the Appellant, but the same does not squarely apply to the file noting(s) or recorded objection(s) sought in the last part of points 1 & 4, respectively.
10. Similarly, the invocation of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act appears to be misplaced, as there is no element of fiduciary evinced in the relationship between the public authority and the said officials, who may or may not have dealt with the records relating to the Appellant, in discharge of their administrative duties. Here, it will be in order to refer to the judgment dated 09.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [(2011) 8 SCC 497], wherein it was held as under:
"...But the words `information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or Page 4 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344 beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer...."
11. In the above backdrop, it is observed that the names of the officials or the file noting(s)/recorded objections, in respect of her own case of promotion, as desired to be disclosed by the Appellant in the instant matter cannot be said to have been held by the Respondent office in a fiduciary capacity.
12. As far as the exemptions in terms of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act are concerned, the Commission finds the square denial of the information i.e of the file noting(s) and recorded objections as inappropriate. The inter play of Section 8(1)(j), (g) and (e) of the RTI Act as sought to be relied upon by the Respondent in the instant case finds semblance in a judgment dated 07.10.2010 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Union of India vs R.S. Khan, W.P.(C) 9355/2009, wherein the RTI Applicant in that case had sought noting(s) etc. of a disciplinary proceedings held against him/her. The following deductions were made by the Court:
"10. The next submission to be dealt with is that information contained in the files in the form of file notings made by the different officials dealing with the files during the course of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner were available to the Union of India in a „fiduciary relationship" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This Court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that in the context of a government servant performing official functions and making notes on a file about the performance or conduct of another officer, such noting cannot be said to be given to the government Page 5 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344 pursuant to a 'fiduciary relationship" with the government within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8(1)(e) is, at best, a ground to deny information to a third party on the ground that the information sought concerns a government servant, which information is available with the government pursuant to a fiduciary relationship, that such person, has with the government, as an employee.
11. To illustrate, it will be no ground for the Union of India to deny to an employee, against whom the disciplinary proceedings are held, to withhold the information available in the Government files about such employee on the ground that such information has been given to it by some other government official who made the noting in a fiduciary relationship. This can be a ground only to deny disclosure to a third party who may be seeking information about the Petitioner in relation to the disciplinary proceedings held against her. The Union of India, can possibly argue that in view of the fiduciary relationship between the Petitioner and the Union of India it is not obligatory for the Union of India to disclose the information about her to a third party. This again is not a blanket immunity against disclosure. In terms of Section 8(1)(e) RTI Act, the Union of India will have to demonstrate that there is no larger public interest which warrants disclosure of such information. The need for the official facing disciplinary inquiry to have to be provided with all the material against such official has been explained in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. L.K. Puri 151 DLT 2008, as under:
'The principle of law, on the conjoint reading of the two judgments, as aforesaid, would be that in case there is such material, whether in the form of comments/findings/ advise of UPSC/CVC or other material on which the disciplinary authority acts upon, it is necessary to supply the same to the charge sheeted officer before relying thereupon any imposing the punishment, major or minor, in as much as cardinal principle of law is that one cannot cat on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent official. Otherwise, such advice of UPSC can be furnished to the Government servant along with the copy of the penalty order as well as per Rule 32 of the CCS(CCA) Rules.' Page 6 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344 xxx
15. It may be further added that the Respondent has already retired on 31st October 2009. Further, even the censure awarded to the Petitioner has been quashed by this Court by an order dated 9th August 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12462 of 2009. The Respondent has also placed on record a copy of the order passed by the CGDA treating the suspension period as duty period, and directing the release of full pay and allowances to the Respondent for the said period.
16. In light of the above developments, this Court finds no merits in any of the apprehensions expressed by the CPIO in the order rejecting the Respondent's application with reference to either Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act 2005. The disclosure of information sought by the Petitioner can hardly endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
There must be some basis to invoke these provisions. It cannot be a mere apprehension.
17. As regards Section 8(1)(j) there is no question that notings made in the files by government servants in discharge of their official functions is definitely a public activity and concerns the larger public interest. In the present case, Section 8(1)(j) was wrongly invoked by the CPIO and by the Appellate Authority to deny information to the Respondent."
13. In another judgment dated 13.07.2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of UPSC vs. R K Jain, W.P.(C) 1243/2011, that dealt with the question of disclosure of file noting(s) and records related to a disciplinary action against a third party, inter alia held as under:
"55. Therefore, what emerges from the aforesaid is that opinions/advices tendered/given by the officers (public officials) can be sought for under the Act, provided the same have not been tendered in confidence/secrecy and in trust to the authority concerned, i.e. to say- in a fiduciary relationship. Since the petitioner has not been able to set up the same in the present case, as aforesaid, the claim of exemption under Section 8(1)(e) stands rejected.Page 7 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344
56. A bare perusal of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act, makes it clear that the exemption would come into operation only if the disclosure of information would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or would identify the source of the information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The opinion/advice, which constitutes the information in the present case, cannot be said to have been given "in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes", as aforesaid. Therefore, that part of the clause would be inapplicable and irrelevant in the present case. So far as the petitioners submission- that the disclosure of Information would endanger the life and safety of the officers who tendered their opinion/advices- is concerned, the same in my considered opinion, as aforesaid, in the facts of the present case, may be addressed- by resort to Section 10 of the Act....." (Emphasis Supplied)
14. In a subsequent judgment dated 10.10.2013 of the same Court in the matter of UPSC vs. G S Sandhu, W.P.(C) 4079/2013, it was inter alia held in the context of similar issue of disclosure of disciplinary proceedings related advice and record that:
"8. .......Therefore, the notings of the officials of UPSC, would contain nothing, except the information which is already made available or is required to be made available to the concerned employee. Sometimes, such information can be a third party information, which qualifies to be personal information, within the meaning of clause (j), but, such information, can always be excluded, while responding to an application made to UPSC, under RTI Act. Therefore, when such information is sought by none other than the employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated or are held, it would be difficult to accept the contention that there is a fiduciary relationship between UPSC and the department seeking its advice or that the information pertaining to such an employee is held by UPSC in trust. Such a plea, in my view, can be taken only when the information is sought by someone other than the employee to whom the information pertains.
xxx Page 8 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344
11. In my view, the apprehension of the petitioner that if the identity of the author of the file notings is revealed by his name, designation or in any other manner, there is a possibility of such an employee being targeted, harassed and even intimidated by the persons against whom an adverse noting is recorded by him on the file of UPSC, is fully justified......Therefore, the person against whom an adverse advice is given may hold the employee of UPSC recording a note adverse to him on the file, responsible for an adverse advice given by UPSC against him and may, therefore, harass and sometime even harm such an employee/officer of UPSC, directly or indirectly. To this extent, the officers of UPSC need to be protected. However, the purpose can be fully achieved by blocking the name, designation or any other indication which would disclose or tend to disclose the identity of the author of the noting. Denying the notings altogether would not be justified when the intended objective can be fully achieved by adopting such safeguards. (Emphasis Supplied)
12. Personal Information As regards clause (j), it would be difficult to dispute that the exemption cannot be claimed when the information is sought by none other than the person to whom the personal information relates. It is only when the information is sought by a third party that such an exemption can be claimed by UPSC. If, the notings recorded on the file and/or the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the concerned department do contain any such information which pertains to a person other than the information seeker and constitutes personal information within the meaning of section 8(1)(j) the UPSC was certainly be entitled to refuse such information on the ground that it is exempted from disclosure under clause 8(1)(j) of the Act."
15. A conjoint reading of these judicial precedents in the context of file noting(s) etc. entailing disciplinary proceedings, that are essentially of higher sensitivity as opposed to file noting(s) etc., in respect of financial benefits accruing on account of a promotion (as in the present case), reveals that disclosure of the information has been the rule, while applicability of Section 10 of the RTI Act is considered to harmonize the conflicting interests of disclosure and protection of privacy and physical safety.
Page 9 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/11834416. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant in respect of points 1 & 4 of the RTI Application, after invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act, for redacting the contents which disclose the names, identifying particulars and/or personal information of third parties, that is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The said revised reply of the CPIO incorporating the available information sans any disclosure of the above said exempted categories of information, shall be provided, free of cost to the Appellant, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
17. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 25.02.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 10 of 10 Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/118344 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)