Central Information Commission
Rajeev Sharma vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 17 May, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2017/166902
Rajeev Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, ... ितवादी/Respondent
Northern Railway, Ferozepur.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18-06-2017 FA : 26-07-2017 SA: 21-09-2017
CPIO : 01.08.2017 FAO : Not on record. Hearing: 16-05-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Northern Railway, Ferozepur seeking following information:-
1. "Please provide the promotion date or order of Shri Jameet Singh when he was promoted as Goods Guard, Ferozepur division.
2. Please provide the promotion date or order of Shri Jameet Singh when he was promoted as Senior Goods Guard, Ferozepur division.
3. Please provide the promotion date or order of Shri Jameet Singh when he was promoted as Passenger Guard, Ferozepur division.
4. Please provide the promotion date or order of Shri Jameet Singh when he was promoted as Senior Passenger Guard, Ferozepur division.Page 1 of 4
5. Please provide the promotion date or order of Shri Jameet Singh when he was promoted as Mail Express Guard, Ferozepur division."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 26-07-2017 requesting that now the information should be provided to him. As the first appellate authority did not give him any reply, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Rajeev Sharma was not present despite notice. Mr. Vijayant Kumar, APO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is a third party information exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and there is no involvement of any public interest in the matter. Therefore, they cannot provide the sought for information to the appellant. Decision:
5. This Commission observed that the disclosure of personal details of Shri Jameet Singh held by the public authority in a fiduciary relationship is exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) r/w Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also, there is no public interest in the matter. Hence, the third party information relating to some other employee which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of the order dated
31.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court India in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 titled as Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam & Anr., wherein it was observed as under:-
"5. ...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.
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.Page 2 of 4
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 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.
15. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.
16. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected."
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 16-05-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/O. Railways, Sr. DMM/PIO
Northern Railway, DRM's Office,
Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, Punjab-152001.
2. Mr. Rajeev Sharma Page 4 of 4