Central Information Commission
Manohar Dhakate vs Food Corporation Of India on 13 January, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/FCIND/A/2018/133960
Manohar Dhakate ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Food Corporation of India, ... ितवादी/Respondent
Nagpur.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01-03-2018 FA : 27-04-2018 SA:30-05-2018
CPIO : 12-04-2018 FAO : 03-05-2018 Hearing: 10-01-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Food Corporation of India, Nagpur seeking following information of some other employees:-
1. "Caste Certificate.
2. Caste Validity Certificate.
3. School Leaving Certificate.
4. 1st page of the Service Register.
5. Xerox copy of the appointment order."
2. The CPIO responded on 12-04-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-04-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 03-05- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Page 1 of 5Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Manohar Dhakate attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. M. J. Vaghmare, Manager (Admin) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the sought for information.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant is seeking third party information of some other employees which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, they informed the Commission that these employees did not give their consent to part with the information. In this regard, they have also furnished a reply to the appellant indicating factual position in the matter vide their letter dated 12-04-2018. The given reply was also read out by the respondent. Decision:
6. This Commission observes that copies of the educational qualification certificates of some other employees available in the records of the public authority in a fiduciary relationship are exempted under Section 8(1)(e) r/w Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also, there is no public interest in the matter. This position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 06.08.2013 in the Civil Appeal No. 6362/2013 titled as UPSC v. Gourhari Kamila.
7. Further, this Commission observes that the 'caste certificate' of an individual employee is an exempted information as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no element of larger public interest has been established in the matter. This position has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 08.11.2013 in W.P.(C) 5812/2010 titled as UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, wherein, it was observed as under:-
"5. In the present case, the information such as date of birth, institution and year of passing graduation, field experience and caste is personal information of the selected candidates. There is no finding by the Commission that it was in larger public interest to disclose the aforesaid personal information of the recommended candidates. Even in his application seeking information, the respondent did not claim that any larger public interest was involved in disclosing the aforesaid information. In the absence of such a claim in the application and a finding to this effect by the Commission, no direction for disclosure of the aforesaid personal information could have been given."Page 2 of 5
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 01.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 776/2016 & CM. No. 3376/2016 titled as Baljeet Singh v. The Pio, Industrial Training Institute, Jahangirpuri & Anr has observed as follows:-
"11. In the case in hand, the respondent no.2 has sought the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The information is a personal information as the caste to which the petitioner belongs is an issue inter-se between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner i.e. between employer and employee and this aspect is governed by service rules. The disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. In fact, it is held so by a Coordinate Bench of this court in UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, W.P.(C) 5812/2010 decided on November 8, 2013."
9. The details of the service records of an individual employee are in the nature of 'personal information' which cannot be supplied to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest. This position has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its decision dated 22-08-2013 vide W.P. No. 1825 of 2013 in Subhash Bajirao Khemnar v. Shri Dilip Nayku Thorat & Others, wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"...that the Chief Information Commissioner was not justified in directing the Information Officer to supply personal information in respect of the service record, income tax returns and assets of the petitioner unless the Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of the information was justified in larger public interest."
10. This Commission also observes that the third party(s) information relating to some other employees which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be provided to the appellant in terms of the order dated 31.08.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court India in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 titled as Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam & Anr., wherein it was observed as under:-
"5. ...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.
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 Page 3 of 5 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
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.
15. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.
16. In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected."
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 10-01-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Food Corporation of India,
Manager(Admin.)/CPIO,
District Office: Ajni, Nagpur,
Maharashtra- 15
2. Manohar Dhakate
Page 5 of 5