Central Information Commission
Madhuri Govind Vangujre vs Department Of Posts on 3 March, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
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/POSTS/A/2021/103879 &
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103886
Madhuri Govind Vangujre ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts,
O/o Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices,
Mumbai West Division, RTI Cell,
Mumbai - 400014, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/03/2022
Date of Decision : 03/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/10/2020 & 13/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 12/11/2020 & 12/11/2020
First appeal filed on : 18/11/2020 & 18/11/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 23/12/2020 & 23/12/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/01/2021 & 18/01/2021
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103879
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2020 seeking the following information:
"Provide the attested photocopy of first page and nominee page of service book by the employer of her husband Mr. Govind Sambhaji Vangujre, Postal Assistance is posted at Grant Road Post Office Vijay Bhavan Mumbai - 400007."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 12.11.2020 stating as follows:-
"Being third party information, the consent was called for from Shri G. S. Vangujre, PA, Grant Road PO. However, the said official has not given consent to supply the copy of first page and nomination page of Service Book. Hence, information cannot be supplied."
CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103886 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2020 seeking the following information:
" Provide the salary pay slip of her husband Mr. Govind Sambhaji Vangujre, Postal Assistance is posted at Grant Post Office Vijay Bhavan Mumbai- 400007."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 12.11.2020 stating as follows:-
"Being third party information, the consent was called for from Shri G. S. Vangujre, PA, Grant Road PO. However, the said official has not given consent to supply the copy of salary pay slip for the month of May 2020. Hence, information cannot be supplied.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2020. FAA's order dated 23.12.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: P C Jagtap, Sr. Supdt. of Post Office & CPIO along with Govind Sambhaji Vangujre (third party) present through audio-conference.
The CPIO in Appeal no. 103879 reiterated the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act while in Appeal no. 103886, he invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated Nil wherein it was mentioned that a copy of the salary slips of the said third party has been provided to the Appellant on 22.02.2022 in view of suo-moto disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act.
To a query from the Commission, the Appellant expressed her dissatisfaction to the fact no material information in Appeal no. 103879 has been provided to her till date. She further affirmed the receipt of averred written submission of CPIO in Appeal no. 103886, however she harped on the delay aspect by contesting that such information has been provided by the CPIO after two years which was in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the service related records of the third party initially to the Appellant in response to both the RTI Applications under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; after seeking consent of said third party by invoking Section 11 of RTI Act, who denied to divulge his personal information. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of 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 while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 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 3 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..."
(Emphasis Supplied) In case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/103886 -
In addition to foregoing observations, the Commission further notes from a perusal of records that the CPIO has erred in providing the salary slips of third party to the Appellant ignoring the objection raised by the third party under Section 11 of RTI Act by giving reference to Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the CPIO is brought towards the provisions of Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act which in itself says that such suomoto disclosure talks about the monthly remuneration of public officials and not the disclosure of entire monthly salary slips. In this regard, the CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future and not to part with any third party's personal information which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act without following due process of law in future.
In furtherance to aforesaid observations, the issue of delay as raised by the Appellant during hearing is rendered inconsequential.
Thus, no further relief can be granted in the matters.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of Appellant and advises her to pursue her matter through appropriate administrative channel.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5