Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Modi vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited. on 2 September, 2021
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/NCCLD/A/2020/671320
Ashok Kumar Modi ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
RTI Cell, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla
Nagar, Dhanbad - 826005.
2. CPIO,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
RTI Cell, P.B. Area, BCCL,
Dhanbad - 826005. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 31/08/2021
Date of Decision : 31/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 17/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/03/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2019 seeking the following information;
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.02.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Subsequently, on 11.01.2020, the Respondent no. 1 sought assistance of Respondent no. 2 under Section 5(4) of RTI Act under due intimation to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent(s): Represented by Binay Ranjan Tudu, Deputy Manager (P) & PIO, P.B. Area present through audio-conference.
The PIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 26.08.2021 as under -
".......the complainant/appellant filed an application dated 11.11.2019 received on 25.11.2019 (Annexure- I) under RTI Act 2005 seeking 2 information regarding service of Sri Manmohan Gupta in company after Jail Custody and for obtaining copy of his pay- slip & attendance Register.
The PIO, PB Area supplied the point wise information with the desired documents vide letter no. 249 dated 29.11.2019. (Annexure- II) That, the complainant/appellant once again filed an online RTI application on similar points vide registration no. NCCLD/R/2019/50079 dated 23.12.2019 which was forwarded to the PIO, P.B. Area by the CPIO, BCCL vide letter no. 1343-1344(H) dated 11.01.2020 received on 17.01.2020.
(Annexure- III) That, on receipt of the above online application the PIO, P.B. Area replied to the applicant vide letter no. 275 dated 28/29.01.2020 (Annexure- IV) that the information was already supplied to the applicant vide letter no. 249 dated 29.11.2019.
That, the complainant the complainant/appellant preferred First Appeal dated 17.02.2020 before the First Appellate authority at CPIO, HQ, BCCL which was forwarded to FAA, PB Area vide letter no. 41 dated 27/28.02.2020 received on 06.03.2020 (Annexure - V).
That, on receipt of the application for first appeal, the First Appellate Authority being unable to fixed the date for physical hearing due to spread of COVID-19 Pandemic passed a decision vide order no. 308 dated 19/20.06.2020.(Annexure - VI) wherein he directed to the PIO, PB Area which is as under:
That, in light of the decision vide no. 308 dated 19/20.06.2020 the desired information in RTI application dated 11.11.2019 was supplied to the 3 applicant (Sri Ashok Kumar Modi) vide our official email dated 01.07.2020 with attachments (Annexure -VII).
Further, once again a letter dated 30.07.2020 was received vide dak no. 281 datéd 29.09.2020 (Annexure -VIII) and the reply was given vide letter no. 405 dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure IX).
Further, most humbly it is to mention that earlier one Sri Ashish Modi also filed a RTI application dated 2.10.2018 (Annexure - X) seeking copy of pay- slip and attendance register in respect of Sri Manmohan Kumar Gupta, Manager (Fin.), P. B. Area from April 2018 to 1s October 2018. In this regard a decision was passed by the Hon'ble CIC in file no. Second Appeal No. CIC/NCCLD/A/2019/110427 that "the information sought regarding the pay-slip of Manmohan Kumar Gupta, Dy. Manager (Fin.) cannot be given under RTI Act, as it is a personnel information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act." (Annexure- XI)."
Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant although affirmed the receipt of the averred reply from the CPIO, however he stated that the said reply was not satisfactory to his expectation.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the information sought for by the Appellant is regarding the salary and service related records of a third party which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is 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 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:4
"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..."
However, the CPIO has provided a point wise factual reply to assist the Appellant which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further observes from the perusal of records that the CPIO has erred in providing the attendance sheet of the concerned third party to the Appellant against point no. 2 of RTI Application without seeking consent of the said third party under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is cautioned to exercise due diligence and follow due process of law as per the RTI Act while divulging any third party's information to the applicant which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
In view of the foregoing observations, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6