Central Information Commission
Abhishek Tiwari vs Ordnance Factory Board on 12 July, 2018
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksx Hkou
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BHAWAN
ckck xaxukFk ekxZ] eqfujdk
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
ubZ fnYyh-110067
Tel: +91-11-26106140/26179548
Email - [email protected]
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
File No. : CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/138238/SD
Date of Hearing: 11/07/2018
Date of Decision:11/07/2018
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Abhishek Tiwari
Respondent : CPIO,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, SK Bose Road,
Kolkata-700001.
RTI application filed on : 21/03/2017
CPIO replied on : 06/04/2017
First appeal filed on : 15/04/2017
First Appellate Authority : 18/05/2017
order
Second Appeal dated : 30/05/2017
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 11 points regarding service details; income tax returns etc. of Om Prakash Kamal (IOFS) RR-JAG Commissioned on 17.09.1992.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-1
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: S.K. Singh, Director & CPIO, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata present through VC.
Appellant stated that he has sought the information in larger public interest as the third party under reference has been charged with corruption.
Commission remarked that it was at a loss to comprehend the aspect of larger public interest in the matter in the absence of any substantial argument or documents tendered for said claim.
Appellant instantaneously pointed out that as per Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act salary and allowances of officers should be suo motu disclosed by public authorities.
Commission asked the Appellant to specify on which query of RTI Application he has sought the salary of the third party, to this he stated that on query no.7 he has sought for Form-16 and Annual Performance Assessment Report.
Decision Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO denying information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It is relevant to quote the judgment dated 31.08.2017 of the Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C S Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act in service matters of government employees has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"...5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc. (xxx) 2 File No. : CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/138238/SD
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-
'12. 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 organisation 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 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.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and 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.'
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any 3 public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1..."
In view of the foregoing, no scope of action lies in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Divya Prakash Sinha) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (H P Sen) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer 4