Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

T Siva Rama Prasad vs Department Of Posts on 25 September, 2020

                                                  CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786

                             के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786

In the matter of:

T Siva Rama Prasad                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant




                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम



CPIO                                                ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Cum Supdt. of Post Offices,
Department of Posts,
Khammam


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 13.07.2018              FA   : 05.09.2018          SA     : 17.10.2018
CPIO : 10.08.2018 &
                              FAO : 04.10.2018           Hearing : 23.09.2020
27.08.2018


The following were present:

Appellant: Heard over the phone


                                                                      Page 1 of 9
                                                     CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786

Respondent: Shri U. Yelamamdaiah, SPO cum CPIO, Department of Posts,
Khammam, heard over the phone

                                  ORDER

Information Sought:

The appellant filed an RTI application on 13.07.2018, seeking information on twelve points, including;

1. "Please supply attested copy of the representation of Sri G. Nageswara Rao PA Bhadrachalam HO dated 4-10-2017 addressed to the Postmaster Bhadrachalam HO regarding his request to move him CPC PH Branch.

2. If the document at point number (1) one cannot he supplied on the ground of its non availability, a photo copy of the same which is enclosed to this request may he attested and the same may be supplied.

3. Please supply attested copy of the office note dated 15-7-2017 written by APM(SB) Bhadrachalam HO to the Postmaster, Bhadrachalam HO in his Book regarding not having knowledge to work in CPC-PLI branch and problems of S.B. Branch.

4. If the document at point number (3) three cannot be supplied on the ground of its non availability, a photo copy of the same which is enclosed to this request may he attested and the same may be supplied.

5. Please supply attested copy of the letter No.ASP/Misc./BCMHO/ WOS Notes/2017 dated 28-6-2017 addressed to the Postmaster Bhadrachalam HO written by ASP BCM (N) Sub-Division, Bhadrachalam regarding WOS Money exchange.

CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786

6. If the document at point number (5) five cannot be supplied on the ground of its non availability, a photo copy of the same which is enclosed to this request may be attested and the same may he supplied.

7. Please supply attested copy of the letter dated 28-6-2017 addressed to the ASP Bhadrachalam (N) Sub-Division, Bhadrachalam written by Sri V. Mahesh PA Bhadrachalam HO regarding hand to hand Book of SBCC.

8. If the document at point number (7) seven cannot be supplied on the ground of its non availability, a photo copy of the same which is enclosed to this request may be attested and the same may he supplied.

9. Please supply attested copy of the letter dated 28-6-2017 addressed to the ASP Bhadrachalam (N) Sub-Division Bhadrachalam written by Sri P. Bhadrachalam PA Bhadrachalam HO regarding hand to hand book of MPCM counter.

10. If the document at point number (9) nine cannot be supplied on the ground of its non availability, a photo copy of the same which is enclosed to this request may he attested and the same may be supplied.

11. Please supply attested copy of the letter No. F/Misc./BCM HO/WOS Notes /2017 dated 30-6-2017 addressed to the Postmaster Bhadrachalam HO written by the SPOs Khammam regarding exchange of WOS notes in Bhadrachalam HO.

12. If the document at point number (11) eleven cannot he supplied on the ground of its non availability, a photo copy of the same which is enclosed to this request may he attested and the same may be supplied."

CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786 The CPIO, vide letter dated 10.08.2018, provided attested copy of document in r/o point no.3, to the appellant. He further denied information under Section 8(1)(h) on point nos. 5, 6, 11 and 12. With respect to the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the CPIO stated that the information sought for relates to third party and advised the appellant to await documents until action is taken as per Section 11 of RTI Act. Further, vide letter dated 27.08.2018, the CPIO informed the appellant that on being approached to furnish information on point nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the concerned third party denied to disclose the information sought for. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.09.2018. FAA, vide order dated 04.10.2018, upheld the reply of CPIO's letters dated 10.08.2018 and 27.08.2018 and disposed of his first appeal.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of misleading and false reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that no information on any point of his RTI application, except for point no. 3, has been furnished to him by the respondent. He further submitted that the respondent has, vide reply dated 10.08.2018, malafidely denied him information on point nos. 5, 6, 11 and 12 by wrongly invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He furthermore submitted that the information as sought vide the aforesaid points consists of the letters addressed to the appellant by a public authority and are in the nature of instructions. Moreover, the inquiry in the matter has been finalized and charge sheet has already been issued to the appellant. Thus, Page 4 of 9 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786 denying information under Section 8(1)(h) is inappropriate. With respect to the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the appellant submitted that these documents have been submitted by government officials to a public authority in their official capacity and not in personal capacity. Thus, it cannot be said that the information sought pertains to personal information of a third party. The appellant also referred to an earlier decision dated 24.09.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Commission is Second Appeal no. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/149218/C wherein the Hon'ble Commission turned down the exemption claimed by the respondent under Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11 of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

The written submissions dated 14.09.2020, filed by the appellant, were taken on record.

The respondent submitted that the information sought vide point nos. 5, 6, 11 and 12 consists of letters addressed to the Post Master by the inquiry officer directing him to supply certain documents to the inquiry officer. Since, the said documents were not relied upon by the disciplinary authority while framing the charge sheet, the same were not furnished to the appellant under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

On being queried as to how the disclosure of such letters would impede the process of investigation, the respondent could not offer any cogent reply. The respondent further submitted that since the documents sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 pertained to third parties, the third parties concerned were approached by the respondent as per Section 11 of the RTI Act in order to obtain their consent to furnish the documents sought for to the appellant. However, the same was denied by the concerned third parties. Hence, the same could not be furnished by the Page 5 of 9 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786 respondent. In response to a query regarding the personal information contained in the said documents, the respondent submitted that the above noted documents consist of the names and designations of the concerned third parties. He further apprised the Commission that the documents sought vide the said points are letters addressed to inquiry officer regarding availability/non-availability of certain documents.

Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that complete and correct information has not been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission refers to the judgement dated 03.12.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anr. WP(C) 3114/2007 wherein it was held as under:

"13. ......It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material......."

Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in B.S. Mathur v. PIO in W.P. (C) 295 of 2011 dated 03.06.2011 had held that:

"19. The question that arises for consideration has already been formulated in the Court's order dated 21st April 2011: Whether the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner to the extent not supplied to him yet would "impede the investigation" in terms of Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act" The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of Page 6 of 9 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786 information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act, which is the only provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public authority that the information sought "would impede the process of investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would not be sufficient when recourse is had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure of such information would 'impede' the investigation...............

22. ...........The mere pendency of an investigation or inquiry is by itself not a sufficient justification for withholding information. It must be shown that the disclosure of the information sought would "impede" or even on a lesser threshold "hamper" or "interfere with" the investigation. This burden the Respondent has failed to discharge."

In view of the above ratios, the Commission observes that the respondent has not been able to demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the documents as sought vide point nos. 5, 6, 11 and 12 would impede or interfere with the investigation. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to furnish due information on point nos. 5, 6, 11 and 12 to the appellant.

The Commission, further, observes that exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act can only be claimed when the information sought relates to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. However, in this matter, the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 Page 7 of 9 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786 and 10 does not relate to the personal information of third parties and are merely exchange of letters with respect to availability or non-availability of certain documents. Thus, the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act would not be applicable in the present case. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to furnish relevant documents on point nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the appellant after severing the names and other particulars of the persons, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the officials concerned. The above direction of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.

Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 23.09.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 8 of 9 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/162786 Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Cum Director of Postal Service, Department of Posts, Office of the Postmaster-General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-500001

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Cum Supdt. of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Khammam Division, Khammam-507003

3. Shri T Siva Rama Prasad Page 9 of 9