Central Information Commission
R N Walujkar vs Central Railway on 11 January, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CRAIL/A/2017/118080/SD
R N Walujkar ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1.CPIO,
Govt of India, Central
Railway, Solapur Division
Station Road, Solapur - 413001.
&
2.CPIO,
Central Railway, O/o the
Chief Medical Superintendent,
Solapur - 413001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
RTI application filed on : 06/12/2016
CPIO replied on : 03/01/2017
First appeal filed on : 16/01/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 20/02/2017
Second Appeal dated : 06/02/2017
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2019
Date of Decision : 09/01/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought copy of certificates furnished by each Medical Officer of SUR Division for claiming conveyance allowance as per Para 6 of Railway Board's letter dated 24.07.2009 for the month of Sept- Nov, 16 along with details of 1 hospital/domiciliary visits to hospitals/patients house by each Medical officer for claiming conveyance allowance as per their declaration certificates.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent (1): Not present.
Respondent (2): Dr. Sajeev N.K., Addl. Chief Medical Supdt. & Rep. of CPIO, Central Railway, O/o the Chief Medical Superintendent, Solapur present through VC.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the same is incomplete. He argued that since payment of conveyance allowance to the Railway Medical Officers is made from Govt. exchequer, citizens have a right to know the details of claims made by them.
Respondent No. (2) submitted that all claim certificates as sought in the RTI Application have been provided to the Appellant.
Appellant insisted that although certificates have been received, details of the ancillary visit of these officers corresponding to the claims have not been provided.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that Respondent No.2 has erred in providing third party information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In doing so, Respondent No.2 has also failed to seek consent of the concerned third parties as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Appellant has not argued any larger public interest in the disclosure of this information hence no further action is warranted in the matter.2
File No : CIC/CRAIL/A/2017/118080/SD In this regard, the Commission draws the attention of Respondent No.2 on a judgment dated 31.08.2017 of Hon'ble 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) "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 3 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 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..."
Adverting to the aforementioned ratio, Respondent No.2 is warned to exercise due caution in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 File No : CIC/CRAIL/A/2017/118080/SD Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) Haro Prasad Sen (हरो सादसेन( Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26106140/ [email protected] दनांक / Date Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by User Date: 2019.01.11 12:30:21 IST 5