Central Information Commission
Sreenivasan M K vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 15 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/PBSEC/A/2022/110092
Sreenivasan M K अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director General, Prasar
Bharati, RTI Cell,
Akashvani Bhavan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi- 110001. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/03/2023
: 13/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 08/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 02/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 20/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
"Mrs. Y S Pournami, staff announcer of AIR Thrissur was employed abroad without permission for more than seven years during 07/09/2002 to 08/11/2009 and an enquiry was conducted and penalty ordered. I want reply to;
1. What was the penalty imposed upon her after the enquiry by the Directorate General under the disciplinary proceedings for staying abroad without permission and employed abroad while in the service. Mrs. Y S Pournami was under suspension in 2018 for criminal conspiracy in connection with the man handling of a higher officer at AIR Thrissur by Udaya Kumar V, now working at AIR Devikulam.
2. What was the penalty imposed upon her after enquiry by the Directorate?
3. A copy of the Enquiry Report.
4. The number of children declared by her and the details of education allowance, child care leave benefits, Medical and LTC benefits allowed till this date.
5. A copy of the recommendation for her:
a) Compassionate appointment in service as Announcer in 1994 while the post was not the one, earmarked for such appointments and
b) The then financial status of her mother who was employed as lecturer in an Aided college.
c) The name of the then Head of Office who issued the appointment order."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 08.11.2021 stating as under:
"The requisite information is denied under Section 8 (1)(j) of the Act as it contains personal information of third parties."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2021. FAA's order, dated 20.12.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: A P Singh, DDG & Nodal Officer (RTI), Prasar Bharti Secretariat along with P R Shaji, Director Engineering & PIO, AIR Kochi present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for by the Appellant related to a third party and was therefore denied to him.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the said exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is reproduced as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:.."
In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further 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 & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
3"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..."
Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4