Central Information Commission
Ashish Bhardwaj vs Department Of Posts on 20 December, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/170398/02459
File nos.:
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/170398+170397+170395+170394+170392+170391+
170390+170388+170387+170386+170384+170382+170381+170379+170378+
170376+170375+170422+170418+170419+170421+170417+170415+170414+
170412+170411+170409+170407+170406+170405+170403+170401+170400+
170424+170426+170427
In the matter of:
Ashish Bhardwaj
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Supdt. of Post Offices
Department of Post
O/o Supdt. of Post Offices,
Purnea Division, Purnea - 854 301
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/04/2018 CPIO replied on : 23/04/2018 First appeal filed on : 16/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 21/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 30/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 19/12/2019 Date of Decision : 19/12/2019
NOTE: The present 36 appeals have arisen from identical RTI applications and hence, all the appeals are clubbed together for consideration and for disposal of the same with common decision.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri M.P Mandal, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices and CPIO, present over VC 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to Branch Post Offices located at Hansa, Basaithi, Rajokhar, Bounsi, Gunwanti, Banganwa, Majhua, Chandradei, Kamaldah, Bhuna, Kanharia, Saurajaber, Aamgachi, Maheshwari (Jogbani), Amour, Sonapur Bazar, Masuriya (Garh Banauli), Pahsara, Mirjapur, Mohani, Mehsail, Bara Idgah, Adhang, Bochgaon, Jhauri, Betauna, Gurhi, Bhamra, Kulla Khash, Hafania, Karankia, Chhatiauna, Gidwas, Parmanandpur, Tamghatti and Bhadeshawar.
Total amount received for payment of pension and details of the beneficiaries to whom the pension was paid during the period from 01 January 1997 to 31 March 2010 and the photocopy of the passbooks of the beneficiaries.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that there was corruption in the respondent organisation on the issue of pension disbursement. On a query by the Commission if he has any document to support his allegation of corruption, he could not submit any material to show proof of the instances where the pension was not received by the actual beneficiaries of those areas. When asked whether any list of complainants was available with him he informed that he had not brought the same to present during the hearing.
The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was provided on 23.04.2018. He further submitted that the information sought is related to personal information of third parties and hence is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, he summed up stating that the passbooks are in the custody of the beneficiaries and also stated the information was sought in the year 2018 whereas the scheme was stopped in the year 2016. He further submitted that as per their record retention schedule, the retention period is for 18 months only. He also pointed out that there was no complaint received regarding pension grievance from any persons of the areas mentioned by the appellant, nor any complaints from higher officials on this ground .2
Decision no.: CIC/POSTS/A/2018/170398/02459 Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO, Superintendent of Posts, Purnea, provided a timely reply vide letter dated 23.04.2018 and the first appeal was also disposed of on 21.08.2018. Prima facie the information sought was related to personal information of third parties and stands exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Having regard to the submissions that surfaced in the course of the hearing and in response to the queries made to both parties by the Commission, and the extent of opportunity extended to the appellant as part of natural justice, the Commission is of the view that there is no larger public interest substantiated by the appellant. He also could not justify his statement regading concerns of corruption in disbursing pension in the various post offices mentioned.
Reference is drawn to the decision dated 13.11.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the relevant paras relating to interpretation of personal information reads as follows:
36. If one's right to know is absolute, then the same may invade another's right to privacy and breach confidentiality, and, therefore, the former right has to be harmonised with the need for personal privacy, confidentiality of information and effective governance........
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.
3Decision:
In view of the above observations and also the judicial dicta mentioned above, the Commission is not inclined to direct disclosure of information as larger public interest was not demonstrated by the appellant. As a matter of fact, the appellant's accusations regarding corruption in the various post offices with regard to pension payment was not supported by any kind of evidence .The reply dated 23.04.2018 is considered proper for all the 36 appeals pending consideration. All the cases being on the same issue but for different post offices are therefore being decided by this one common order. No further action is required in these cases.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4