Central Information Commission
Roopadevi M vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs - ... on 9 February, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi -110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Email: [email protected]
Appeal No.:-CIC/SB/C/2016/000115-BJ + CIC/SB/C/2016/000118-BJ
Complainant : Ms. Roopa Devi M
# 863, 7th Main, 3rd Cross, H.A.L.
2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560008,
Mobile No. 9743072044
Respondent : CPIO &
Deputy Commissioner,
O/o the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise,
Bangalore -I, C.R. Building Annexe. Queens Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
Date of Hearing : 08.02.2017
Date of Decision : 08.02.2017
Date of filing of RTI applications 17.12.2015 29.12.2015
CPIO's response 10.02.2016 10.02.2016
Date of filing the First appeal Not on record Not on record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of complaint by the 23.02.2016 23.02.2016
Commission
ORDER
FACTS:
The complainant, vide her RTI applications sought information relating to one Mrs. K Senthamarai Selvi (Supt. of Customs) and desired details of her official income, her date of joining duty, details of declared assets as per official records, whether she was staying in rented premises or own premises, complete details of suspensions/ reprimands, departmental enquiries etc from date of joining duty till date of RTI application, details of assets and liabilities, net payment every month of EMIs towards discharge of liabilities like loans, savings scheme, mutual funds, investments in share market, number of children and their present educational qualifications, details of children's marriage, and matters related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 10.02.2016 provided point-wise reply to the complainant. Dissatisfied by the reply of the CPIO, the complainant approached the Commission.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Ms. Roopadevi M. (M:9743072044) alongwith Mr. Kriplani (M: 9845024807) through VC;
Respondent: Mr. D. Anil, Additional Commissioner of Customs (M: 9900063930) through VC;
The complainant reiterated the contents of her RTI application and stated that due to denial of information by the CPIO, they filed a complaint before the Commission. On being queried as to why they did not file first appeal, it was alleged that even the FAA is conniving with other officials and due to lack of trust in the institution of FAA, a complaint was filed before the Commission. The respondent explained that the information sought by the complainant related to personal information which had no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, hence it was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant also submitted that they had filed a complaint with the CVC as the officer involved in this case had demanded bribe from the complainant directly which was video recorded. The recording had also been shared with the CVC. During hearing, the Commission was informed that CVC had sought additional details from the complainant to substantiate their claim and therefore, they had resorted to RTI. The respondent however, alleged that the video recording of seeking bribe from the complainant is a photoshopped version and contested its authenticity. Explaining the background of the case, it was informed that raids were conducted in premises of the company leading to seizure of incriminating documents and that the personal information being sought by the complainant about officers involved in this exercise is out of frustration and personal vendetta.
The respondent further referred to the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission reported as MANU/SC/0816/2012 which held as under:-
"13. 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 organization 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 of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of Page 2 of 4 such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
Further, the Commission referred to judgments quoted below:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-
"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.
19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a „sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible.
26. Without prejudicing the aforementioned observations, this court is further of the view that disclosure of such information is mainly violative of Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Apex Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr.' 2012 (12) SCALE 525 while giving due consideration to the confidentiality of the names of the interviewers was of the view that:
"30. ......The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the Interview Board to harm and, on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose. Furthermore, the view of the High Court in the judgment under appeal that element of bias can be traced and would be crystallized only if the names and addresses of the examiners/interviewers are furnished is without any substance. The element of bias can hardly be correlated with the disclosure of the names and addresses of the interviewers. Bias is not a ground which can be considered Page 3 of 4 for or against a party making an application to which exemption under Section 8 is pleaded as a defence...."
27. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in 'Bihar Public Service Commission' (supra) this court is conscious of the fact that the disclosure of such information may endanger the physical safety of an examiner/interviewer who under an apprehension of danger to his life may not be able to effectively discharge his duties. Further, such a disclosure could seriously affect the secrecy and confidentiality of the selection process."
The complainant contested it on the ground that the details were required to substantiate their allegations before the investigating agency. However, no larger public interest could be justified or established which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it is evident that the CPIO had given a response in the matter. As stated by the complainant the matter is already under investigation with the CVC, therefore keeping in view the aforesaid judgments cited above, no intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. The personal information and other details can be sought by the investigating agency directly, if so required.
The complaints stand disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copies to:
1- Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Satarkta Bhawan, Satarkta Bhawan, Block 'A', GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi- 110 023 2- Chairman, CBEC, Department Revenue, M/o Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110001;Page 4 of 4