Central Information Commission
Ram Hari Sharma vs India Meteorological Department on 10 March, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/IMETD/A/2023/652368
CIC/IMETD/A/2023/652374
CIC/IMETD/A/2023/653720
Ram Hari Sharma .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
India Meteorological
Department, Mausam Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025
Date of Decision : 10.03.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
CIC/IMETD/A/2023/652368
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 04.09.2023
First appeal filed on : 19.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.11.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"Brief facts: This information is being sought in respect of Shri Sumesh Verma, Met B working in DGM works section. Earlier he has been transferred from Delhi to Northeast station but it has been found that his transfer has been cancelled and he has been retained at Delhi.
Kindly provide following in formation:
1. Shri Sumesh Verma. Met B has been transferred from Delhi to Northeast and he has been retained by giving immunity of office bearer of IMDGOA. Kindly provide copy of letter issued by service association (IMDGOA) in favour of Shri Sumesh Verma. Met B. On which immunity being given on the grounds if an office bearer of IMDGOA. Please provide the name of officer who has recommended cancellation of his transfer by misguiding approving authority.
2. Provide the certified list of transfer wherein Shri Sumesh Verma. Met B was transferred as well as provide name of other officials to whom immunity from transfer on the grounds of being office bearers of a service association/union have been given along with copy of letters submitted by the respective association/union for cancellation of their transfers.
3. Please provide the letter if IMDGOA wherein Shri Sumesh Verma. Met B was holding any executive post in IMDGOA of any other Association/union.
4. Please provide the name of the association/union and name of the post of association which he is holding presently."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 04.09.2023 stating as under:
"Point No. (1):- Third Party information cannot be provided. Point No. (2):- Third Party information cannot be provided. Point No. (3):- Enclosed.
Point No. (4):- No deduction of Association/ Union subscription has been made from the salary of Sh. Sumesh Verma, Met-B since last two financial years."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 9CIC/IMETD/A/2023/652374 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.08.2023 CPIO replied on : 12.09.2023 First appeal filed on : 29.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.11.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.08.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Brief Facts: it is learnt that Shri PK Das, Meteorologist 'B' has been found indulged in financial fraudulant in connection with transactions on GeM for purchasing of ferrosilicon as IS:1110 (Category Name) with identical IP ADDRESS ([email protected]) of both buyer and LI Bidder. The identical IP Address of buyer and seller appeared to be a case of collusion between the buyer and the seller. In this regard feedback and action taken has been sought by CEO, GeM office from IMD.
Kindly Provide following information under RTI act 2005:
1. Provide IP ADDRESSES of both Buyer and L1 Bidder seller to buy ferrosilicon for RMC Guwhati which is reported by office of CEO, GeM.
2. Provide Name of the IMD officials involved in this purchase.
3. Provide certified copy of action taken by IMD against the officials involved in this purchase.
4. Provide certified copy of report of the department enquiry committee constituted to enquire the case.
5. Provide the name of the officers who enquired this financial fraudulent in connection with purchase of ferrosilicon and also provide.
6. Provide certified copy of government norms/rules in purchase through GeM in which single person can be a buyer or seller.
7. Provide type/nature of punishment under CCS conduct rules in cases of such financial irregularities done by a Govt. servant.
8. Provide the certified copy of rule wherein integrity of Govt servant has been reported doubtful and he/she can be given regular promotion.
9. Provide copy of the rules and action to be taken against a Govt servant who found involved in financial irregularities/fraudulent reported by an external Govt agency.Page 3 of 9
10. Provide the copy of vigilance clearance report against Sh PK Das, Met-B against the enquiry for his involvement in the purchase of ferrosilicon for RMC Guwahati.
11. Provide certified copy of reply submitted by Sh PK Das, Met-B against the explanation memo issued to him in his involvement in purchase of ferrosilicon through GeM."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.09.2023 stating as under:
"In reference of your RTI application dated 14.08.2023 received from CPIO, MOES dated 16.08.2023(received in this office dated 17.08.2023); and reply as received from RMC Guwahati dated 12.09.23(received in this office dated 18.09.2023) the point wise information pertaining to your query no. 7,8 &9 as received from the concerned sections of this office is given below:
Point No. (7) & (9):- The information requested by the applicant is related to CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Conduct Rules, 1964 applicable for Govt. employees, which are available in public domain.
Point No. (8):- The CCS (conduct rules), 1964 applicable to Govt. employees are available in the public domain."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.10.2023, held as under:
"1. Third party information.
2. Dealt by designated official/cannot be provided by the concerned section.
3. No information is available
4. No information is available
5. No information is available
6. No such rule is traceable.
7. Information may be sought from O/o Director, Vigilance, New Delhi- 110003
8. Information may be sought from O/o Director, Vigilance, New Delhi.
9. Information may be sought from O/o Director, Vigilance, New Delhi.
10. Nil as no enquiry reported against him.
11. No information is available"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 4 of 9CIC/IMETD/A/2023/653720 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2023 CPIO replied on : 07.09.2023 First appeal filed on : 19.09.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.10.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.10.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Brief facts: Instances of fraudulent claims of leave travel concession (LTC) are being detected by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the Ministry of Finance has ordered that LTC claims paid to government employees over the past 10 years be scrutinized. The Controller General of Accounts in the finance ministry has, in an order issued on April 20, directed its subordinate offices in all ministries and departments that the internal audit wings will examine the LTC claims paid from 2010-11 onwards along with their regular audit submit their compliance report to the ministry by September 30. After audit of some government offices, the CAG had, in its report, observed that after air tickets submitted by employees were cross checked with the concerned airlines, it emerged that the employees had changed the amount mentioned in original air tickets to higher amount, names of unauthorized travel agents through which tickets were booked was deleted from the ticket and in some cases details were altered.
There are cases of fraudulent claims of LTC by IMD officials also in past 4- 5 years, one such LTC fraudulent claim was noticed in respect of Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, Met B working in DGM office on pension seat. He has cheated with office and claimed fake LTC. The case has been examined by vigilance section for which he has been found guilty. He has been punished by office due to his fraudulent claim of LTC by submitting forged air tickets. Despite found him guilty for doing financial fraud to the office by competent authority, he has given regular promotion.
Kindly provide following information under RTI act 2005:
1. Sh. Anil Kumar Pandey, Met B has been found guilty for his fraudulent LTC claim; the disciplinary action under CCS conduct rules has taken Page 5 of 9 against him. Please provide certified copy of file notings as well as allow file inspection.
2. Please provide certified copy of report submitted by enquiry committee against him.
3. Please provide copy of office memo issued to him.
4. Please provide copy of reply submitted by him against the office memo issued by administration in this reference.
5. Sh. Anil Kumar Pandey, Met B has been found guilty in financial bungling with office due to his fake LTC claim on forged air tickets. Please provide certified copy of vigilance clearance letter submitted to DPC committee for his Met B promotion.
6. How many APARs have been considered for his promotion and what are the grades of all those APARs. The officer promoted ignoring his financial irregularities, Please provide the copy of CCS conduct rule in such case.
7. Provide the name of officers or committee members those who have examined his case and recommended this punishment. Provide the certified copy of file notings and allow the inspection of file.
8. Despite doing fraudulent financial claim for which he has been found guilty by vigilance, office has taken his case leniently and recommended him for regular promotion, kindly provide name of the officer and his remarks with justification."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.09.2023 stating as under:
"In reference of your RTI application registered in this office bearing Registration No. IMETD/R/P/23/00026 dated 01.08.2023; the point wise information pertaining to your query as received from the concerned sections of this office is given below:
Point No. (1) to (8):- Third Party information cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.09.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 09.10.2023, held as under:
"The First Appeal Authority (FAA) examined the case thoroughly and observed that the appellant has sought third party information which is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 6 of 9Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma along with Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, authorized representative of the Appellant present in person. Respondent: Shri Harmeet Singh Sawhney, Scientist-E and CPIO, Shri Anoop, Met.-B and Shri S. Mowal, Met B., all present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The authorized representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of above-mentioned RTI applications and instant appeals and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and has not provided complete and correct information.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that the CPIO vide their letters dated 04.09.2023, 12.09.2023 and 07.09.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant. Further, the Appellant had sought personal information of third party related to their transfer, vigilance clearance, etc. which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his above-mentioned second appeals are aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI applications. On the other hand, the CPIO in his response has categorically informed the Appellant that point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on their record has been provided to the Appellant. Further, the information as sought pertaining to other employees being third party cannot be furnished under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest for seeking third party information.Page 7 of 9
The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the CPIO that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of a third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(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, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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:
"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 Page 8 of 9 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..."
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies of the CPIO and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, India Meteorological Department, Mausam Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)