Central Information Commission
Mahesh Maruti Karache vs Department Of Posts on 9 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2023/631775
Mahesh Maruti Karache ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Posts,
Karad ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.01.2023 FA : 11.03.2023 SA : 28.06.2023
CPIO : 03.02.2023 FAO : 03.04.2023 Hearing : 06.12.2024
Date of Decision: 09.12.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please supply certified copies of notification of recruitment of GDS MD/GDS MC of Garawade Branch post office in account with Bahule Sub post office under then Karad Sub division, Satara Division in the year 2015-2016, refer to section 4(1) (b) (vi) of RTI act 2005.
(ii) Please supply certified copies of appointment order of GDS MD/GDS MC of Garawade Branch post office in account with Bahule Sub post office under then Karad Sub division, Satara Division in the year 2015-2016 along with file notings, refer to section 4(1) (b) (vi) of RTI act 2005.Page 1 of 6
(iii) Please supply certified copies of establishment strength GDS BPM /GDS MD/GDS MC of Garawade Branch post office in account with Bahule Sub post office under then Karad Sub division, Satara Division in the year 2015-2016, refer to section 4(1) (b) (vi) of RTI act 2005.
(iv) Please supply detailed pay and allowances including bonus paid to GDS MD/GDS MC of Garawade Branch post office in account with Bahule Sub post office under then Karad Sub division, Satara Division since his/her appointment in the year 2015-2016 to 2021, refer to section 4(1) (b) (vi) of RTI act 2005.
(v) Please supply certified copies termination/dismissal order of GDS MD/GDS MC of Garawade Branch post office in account with Bahule Sub post office under then Karad Sub division Division, Satara Division recruited in the year 2015-2016 along with file notings, refer to section 4(1) (b) (vi) of RTI act 2005.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) The matter is under investigation; hence as per section 8(h) of RTI Act 2005 the information cannot be disclosed as the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
(ii) The matter is under investigation, hence as per section 8(h) of RTI Act 2005 the information cannot be disclosed as the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
(iii) The matter is under investigation, hence as per section 8(h) of RTI Act 2005 the information cannot be disclosed as the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
(iv) The matter is under investigation, hence as per section 8(h) of RTI Act 2005 the information cannot be disclosed as the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.Page 2 of 6
(v) The matter is under investigation, hence as per section 8(h) of RTI Act 2005 the information cannot be disclosed as the information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.03.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.06.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sanjay Rao, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant reiterated the background of the RTI application and submitted that the CPIO deliberately denied the information as he himself was involved in the matter. Moreover, the investigation into the matter has been completed and the information sought should be provided.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 03.02.2023, wherein, it was stated that the matter was under investigation, hence, denied u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. When enquired by the Commission regarding furnishing the information on point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the matter related to the information sought is sub-judice before Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai, thus, the information cannot be provided at this stage.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the CPIO on 03.02.2023, is evasive and misleading. The perusal of the RTI application reveals that the information sought on point nos. 2, 4 and 5 of the RTI application involved personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, should have been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this Page 3 of 6 regard, the attention of both the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"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..."
9. For point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application, the Commission notes that the plea that concerning matter is sub-judice before Hon'ble CAT, Mumbai, could not be a sole ground for denying disclosure of information under the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the CPIO could not substantiate or justify their stand on nondisclosure of information under any of the specific provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the attention of both the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble High Page 4 of 6 Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010. The following was thus held:
"5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
Similarly, this Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:
"At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court."
10. In view of foregoing observations, the CPIO is directed to provide information as sought on point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 09.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Supdt. & CPIO, Department of Posts, Karad Division, Karad, MH- 415110
2. Mahesh Maruti Karache Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)