Central Information Commission
Sowesh Pattanaik vs Ndmc on 3 March, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NDMCN/A/2024/111167
Sowesh Pattanaik .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Vigilance Department, Palika
Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025
Date of Decision : 27.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.11.2023
PIO replied on : 19.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 17.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.04.2024
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.11.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"According to newspaper reports dated 7 May 2017 (copies of which are enclosed), a report was filed by New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Vigilance Director Sh. M.L. Sharma with Joint Secretary, Union Home Page 1 of 10 Ministry, GOI, in which it is stated that a shop in Gole Market was illegally purchased and transferred in the name of the mother of R.K. Gaur, DANICS officer, without seeking approval of the competent authority.
1. According to newspaper reports dated 7 May 2017, copies of which are appended herewith, a report was filed by NDMC Vigilance Director Sh. M.L. Sharma with the Union Home Ministry, addressed to Joint Secretary, in which its stated that a shop in Gole Market (No. 44) was illegally purchased and transferred by R.K. Gaur, DANICS officer, in the name of his mother without seeking approval of the competent authority.
(i) Kindly furnish a copy of the aforesaid report filed by NDMC Vigilance Director Sh. M.L. Sharma with the Union Home Ministry in 2017.
2. According to the same newspaper reports, the NDMC Vigilance Director in its report to the Union Home Ministry stated that R.K. Gaur, who was then Director (Estate-I), NDMC had conspired, misrepresented the facts and illegally regularised various violations without the approval of the competent authority and thereafter facilitated purchase and transfer of the property in favour of his mother and thereby misused his official position for personal gains in violation of the service conduct rules and propriety and had thereby sought that the MHA should initiate disciplinary action for major penalty proceedings against R.K. Gaur, who in 2017 was OSD to Delhi Government's Labour Minister, Sh. Gopal Rai.
(i) Kindly provide information to explain what constitutes 'disciplinary action for major penalty proceedings'?
(ii) What was the outcome of the disciplinary action sought in the report?
(iii) What disciplinary action was taken against R.K. Gaur, DANICS officer, for his alleged corruption and violations of the service conduct rules and propriety?"
The PIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.12.2023 stating as under:
"Para 1 & 2 "The applicant sought the information concerned with Ministry of Home Affairs and Shop No. 44, Gole Market regarding disciplinary proceedings against Sh. R.K. Gaur and same being personal Page 2 of 10 & third party information, therefore, the information sought by the applicant is protected under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Further, it is pertinent to be mentioned here that the information sought by the applicant process in the vigilance file and same can't be authorized to be disclosed as these amount to information confidentially held by the public authority in pursuance of decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in case No. CIC/AT/A/2009/0617 dated 16.09.2009 in the case of K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise. The aforesaid CIC order had also been relied upon the CIC while delivering decision in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010 and in Case No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000649 dated 08.02.2017.""
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.01.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal with the following arguments:
"...8. Brief Facts of the case:
According to newspaper reports dated 7 &9May 2017 (copies of which are enclosed), a vigilance enquiry report was filed by New Delhi Municipal Council INDMC) Vigilance Director Sh. M.L. Sharma with Joint Secretary Union Home Ministry (MHA), Gol, wherein it is stated that R.K. Gaut DANICS officer posted with the Delhi Government was found guilty of " illegally purchasing and transferring Shop no. 44 in Gole Market in the name of his mother while holding the post of the NDMC Director Estate) in violation of the service rules.
The Vigilance Director's report also stated that R.K. Gaur had 'willfully misrepresented the facts, conspired and illegally regularized unauthorized constructions and various other violations in the NDMC r area without the approval of the competent authority and thereafter facilitated purchase and transfer of the property in favour of his mother and thereby misused his official position for personal gains in violation of the service rules and propriety'. The report also said the MHA should initiate disciplinary action for major penalty proceedings against R.K. Gaur.
According to newspaper report dated 5 January 2023, copy enclosed, the Lt Governor of Delhi rejected Delhi Government's proposal to nominate R.K Gaur, retired DANICS officer, to the reconstituted Animal Welfare Board as the former civil servant was "tainted", with a vigilance case pending against him.
9. Reasons/grounds for this appeal/complaint:
Page 3 of 10(i) (a) The information sought in the aforesaid RTI Application bearing registration No. NDMC/OR/2023/60643, dated 22.LL.2023 was denied by the PIO, copy of the reply attached, on the grounds that the information "being personal & third party information, therefore, the information sought by the applicant is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005.
Further, it pertinent to be mentioned here that the information sought by the applicant process in the vigilance file and same can't be authorized to be disclosed as these amount to information confidentially held by the public authority in pursuance of decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in case No. CIC/AT/A/2009/0617 dated 16.09.2009 in the case of K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise. The aforesaid CIC order had also been relied upon the CIC while delivering decision in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010 and in Case No. CIC/SB/A/22015/000649 dated 08.02.2017.
The aforesaid grounds for denial of information is flawed, perfunctory arbitrary and unreasonable, entirely erroneous and misplaced on the basis that 'illegal and corrupt practices by a civil/public servant' and 'abuse of power for personal gains and profits while holding public office do not constitute "personal", but "public" matters of 'public interest,' hence information relating it cannot be construed as "personal information".
(b) Further, the denial of information by the PIO vide para 2 of the reply, "in pursuance of decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in case No. CIC/AT/A/2009/0677 dated 16.09.2009 in the case of K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise. The aforesaid CIC order had also been relied upon the CIC while delivering decision in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010 and in Case No. CIC/SB/A/22015/000649 dated 08.02.2077" is flawed, invalid, misplaced, and perfunctory due to irrelevant extrapolation. It is pertinent to note that the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC cited by the PIO are in reference to a common matter, i.e. "disclosure of file notings," "correspondence and note-sheets" that does not form the subject matter of information sought by the appellant.
More so, no reply received despite the hearing conducted by the First Appellate Authority [FAA) maintains denial of information.
In reference to the above submissions, it is pertinent to mention that information on gross corrupt and illegal practices by a civil servant cannot be denied terming it as "personal & third party information" under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act,2005 thereby giving primacy to protecting the interests of the corrupt abusing public office for personal gains and profits over public interest which is in gross contravention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 in CBSE & Anr vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., para 12, wherein it is held that "The object of the (RTI) Act is to empower the citizens to fight against corruption and hold the Government and their Page 4 of 10 instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by providing them access to information regarding functioning of every public authority."
(ii) The information sought relates to the illegal/corrupt acts of the DANICS officer, R.K. Gaur that were committed for personal gains and profits while occupying public office and as such constitute an abuse of the power entrusted in him while, during and in/from the capacity of holding that public office, hence it is a matter of public activity /interest.
Further, according to newspapers reports (copies attached), the Vigilance Director's submissions in his report that, "as per CCS (conduct) rules, an officer should not use the office for his personal gains and profits" per se reinforces the truth that it is a matter of public activity/interest and hence cannot draw protection under Section Stixj) of RTI Act, 2005 but, on the contrary, the whole sale unreasonable, extraneous and ill-conceived protection provided by the PIO, shri Rattan Lal by refusing information and no reply from the Director of Vigilance) & FAA is in deviation from the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court of India, frustrating the essence and defeating the purpose of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is further pertinent to refer to the very useful decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India on the importance and scope of right to information stated in the same judgement:
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain - (79T5) 4 SCC 428, this court observed: "ln a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct there can but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing, The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security."
Further the Supreme Court states at para 9, p.12:
The Preamble to the (RTI) Act declares the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act thus:
'An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority...
Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;Page 5 of 10
And whereas democracy requires qn informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also for contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed,'
(iii) Most importantly, it is to be noted that, according to newspaper report of January 5, 2023, the Lt. Governor of Delhi rejected the Delhi Government's nomination of the retired DANICS Officer, R.K. Gaur to the reconstituted Animal Welfare Board as he was "tainted", with a vigilance department case against him.
Despite all the above reported facts of corruption and abuse of public office for personal gains against the former DANICS officer, R.K. Gaur, the frivolous grounds on which information is denied to the RTI applicant is arbitrary thereby shielding corruption and further abetting it by giving primary to protected interest over public interest and, more so, constitutes a negation of the following enumeration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on what constitutes information under RTI Act, 2005 in the above stated case at para 31(i), p. 44:
"information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in containing or discouraging corruption enumerated in clauses [b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act)."
It is also pertinent to submit that as the aforesaid "tainted" retired DANICS Officer, RK. Gaur is held guilty of the above mentioned cases involving moral turpitude according to the Rules and Regulations of registered organizations/entities such as the Residents Welfare Association (RWA), it debars/disqualifies him from holding any post[s) and even from being a mere member of any such organization/ entity. But presently, he has been actively interfering and indulging in activities of such organizations inimical to the public welfare interests, allegedly holding public post(s) by deliberately concealing his past records dealt herein, especially the above stated corrupt deeds that disqualifies him and renders him ineligible and incompetent from playing any role or holding any position within the registered organization/entity having such "Disqualification " provisions.
Nonetheless, when so much of information is already available on the internet through newspaper reporting that forms the basis of this RTI application, it is, therefore very significant and necessary that further information sought in the RTI application bearing registration No. NDMC/OR/2023/60643, dated 22.11.2023 may kindly be supplied, without further delay..."
A written submission dated 20.02.2025 filed by Shri Rattan Lal, Dy. Director (Vig.)/PIO, NDMC is taken on record, wherein he reiterated the contents of averred reply and stated as under.
Page 6 of 10"...2.3 Further, Dr. Sowesh Pattanaik was not satisfied with the reply of PIO (Vig.) and filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority Director Vigilance, NDMC on dated 17.01.2024. An opportunity of personal hearing were granted to him on dated 09.02.2024 & 28.02.2024 at 03:30 P.M. wherein he appeared before the FAA / Director Vigilance, NDMC, therefore, an order dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure-IV) was passed by the FAA /Director Vigilance, NDMC and intimated that:-
"The RTI application of the appellant dated 22.11.2023 and reply of the PIO (Vigilance) dated 19.11.2023 has been gone through by the undersigned. It is observed that the PIO has rightly denied the information under the RTI Act-2005. Hence, no further orders is required to be passed in this matter. Now, therefore, in exercise of this powers confirmed under section 19(6) of the RTI Act-2005 and in view of the above said appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed off. "
2.4 The above said order passed by First Appellate Authority dated 22.05.2024 has been conveyed to Dr. Sowesh Pattanaik R/o Flat No. ********, Vasant Kunj. New Delhi-110070."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Rattan Lal, Dy. Director (Vig.)/PIO, NDMC present in person.
The appellant narrated the genesis of instant case by stating that the concerned third-party officer was a member of his Residential Welfare Association and as per the Rules/Bye Laws of their RWA that person being a corrupt public servant not entitled for continuation of their membership. Therefore, to bring his guilt on record of the RWA, the appellant has sought the requested information; however, it was denied by the respondent ignoring the fact that misdeeds of the officer concerned was already exposed by the media. He prayed the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the complete information.
The respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that reply as per the RTI Act has already been provided to the appellant. He handed over a copy of his written submission to the appellant during the hearing, which is taken on record. The respondent Page 7 of 10 further apprised the bench that they are neither the cadre controlling authority nor Disciplinary Authority of the third party.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, notes that the main premise of the instant Appeal was denial of information by the Respondent. In response to which, the Respondent replied that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third party, therefore, information being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission is of considered view that the respondent has appropriately denied the information to the appellant as it contains personal information of third party which cannot be disclosed 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, xxx
(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 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) Page 8 of 10 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 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..."
Emphasis Supplied.
Neither in the RTI application nor in the instant appeal has the Appellant brought out any overriding public interest that will be served with the disclosure of the personal information of a third-party.
Hence, no cause of action subsists in the matter under the RTI Act for further adjudication.
The appeal is 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 Page 9 of 10 Copy To:
The FAA, New Delhi Municipal Council, Vigilance Department, Palika Kendra, New Delhi - 110001 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)