Central Information Commission
Umesh Kumar vs Department Of Revenue on 19 July, 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/DOREV/A/2022/139438
Umesh Kumar .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Revenue, RTI Cell,
North Block, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/07/2023
Date of Decision : 17/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 06/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 15/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 05/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"1) Provide me a copy of the Recruitment Rules for Data Entry Operators Grade A,/Grade B. 1
2) lf there are no recruitment rules for Data Entry Operators, what norms would you follow regarding fixation of their pay and allowances, leave and penalties, etc,? Please provide me a copy of that if any.
3) Does a DEO (Data Entry Operator) entitled to get any type of leave with pay or without pay for being absent on a working day? Please disclose in your own words.
4). If yes, please provide me with a physical copy of the Notice/Order/Notification/Circular issued by the Department in lieu of the above statement.
5) Does a Data Entry Operator entitled to get any type of pay/allowance for being absent on a working day, if so, what is the basic/minimum wage which is paid to him/her for that day? Please disclose in your own words.
6) What amount is being paid to a Data Entry Operator for working per day including PF/GPF, if any?
7) Total no. of leave with pay provided to a DEO in a month/year.
8) Total no. of leave without pay provided to a DEO in a month/year.
9) Does a DEO (Data Entry Operator) entitled to Bet any type of pay or wages if he/she is on leave if any provided to him/her by the Department? Please explain in your own words.
10) provide me a physical copy of any order/notification/circular/OM, which contains clear instructions regarding the total number of leaves which are provided to a Data Entry Operator, if any
11) Is there any rotational transfer policy for the transfer of Data Entry Operators, if yes, provide me a physical copy of the instructions issued by the Department regarding the transfer of DEOs?
12)After what interval of time, a Data Entry Operator is entitled to get a transfer from one place to another?2
13)After what interval of time, a Contractor providing outsourcing services to the Department could be renewed or changed?
14) For how long is the existing Contractor providing outsourcing services to the department, being renewed continuously, and why?
15) Whether any Data Entry Operator has been transferred on a rotation basis by the Department till now? lf not. why?
16) Provide me a list of the Data Entry Operators who are working in the same place/section for more than 8 years, in the Department of Revenue.
17) What is the basic criteria to select the contractor/firm for availing the outsourcing services of the Data Entry Operator?
18) Provide me the list of names of Contractors who have been awarded the contracts for outsourcing services of Data Entry Operators by the Department of Revenue for the last fifteen years.
19) What is the rotation policy for giving a contract to a firm/associate/individual, if please provide a hard copy containing full details of the above.
20) Provide me a physical copy of the list (name-wise) of total Data Entry Operators (DEO) who have been working at present in the Department of Revenue since 2012.
21) Provide me with a physical copy of the list of Data entry Operators inclusive of their salary details (month-wise) in tabular form, working in the Department of Revenue since January 2020 till the date.
22) What are the office timings for a Data Entry Operator?
23) Do they (Data Entry Operators) are bound to mark their biometric attendance? if yes, please provide me a physical copy of the biometric attendance of Data Entry Operators working in the Department of Revenue for last two months."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.06.2022 stating as under:
3"Please refer to your RTI application dated 25.04.2022 received from the Department of Posts vide Registration No. DOREV/R/P/22/00272 dated 09.05.2022. Department of Expenditure vide Registration No. DOREV/R/T/22/00501 dated 13.05.2022 and Department of Personnel & Training vide their Reference No. DOP&T/R/1722/01620/3 dated 10.05.2022 respectively for providing information under section 6(3) of Right to Information Act. 2005. It is stated that the requisite information is in nature of questionnaire or seeking applicability of rules which does not come under the ambit of RTI Act. It is reiterated that as per DoPT's O.M. No.1/7/2009-1R dated 1st June, 2009, which states that -
"The definition of Information cannot include within its ad answers to the question -why- which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done in the sense of justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly he classify as information. "
It is also reiterated that the CIC in its order in appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006 held that:
"It is not open to an appellant to ask. in the guise of seeking information. questions to the public authority about the nature and quality of their actions. The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries. as in this case. in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether."
In view of this, queries raised by you vide aforesaid application do not come under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 05.07.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"...I also mentioned in my first Appeal, that only copies of the documents which must be available with the Department of Revenue, have been sought through the points no. 1, 10, 16, 18, 20 and 21 of my RTI Application dated 4 25/04/2022, where the CPIO's reply vide his letter dated 06/06/2022, that "the RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, why, what when and whether", does not have any relevance w.r.t. to the information sought by me via above mentioned points of my RTI Application dated 25/0412022. But instead of directing the CPIO for supplying me the desired documents, the First Appellate Authority/Director (Ad.1B), Department of Revenue, has disposed my first appeal off vide his Appeal order No. R.20AW812022-Ad.lB, dated 05107/2022 stating that the facts and circumstances are very different in above mentioned case of "Mr. T.B. Dhorajiwala vs Dr. lndu Saxena, llTB, Bombay, dated 09/02/2009 quoted by the Appellant in his appeal w.r.t. this appeal.
5) The documents desired in form of physical copies of the records which must be available with the Department of Revenue, vide my RTI Application dated 25/04/2022 are as follows:-
(1) Copy of recruitment Rules for Data Entry Operators Grade A/B (10) Physical copy of any order/Notification/Circular/OM, which contains clear instructions regarding the total number of leave which are provided to a DEO,if any (15) List of the Data Entry Operators who are working in the same place/sections for more than 8 years in the Department of Revenue (18) List of names of Contractors who have been awarded the contracts for outsourcing services of DEOs by the Department of Revenue for the last fifteen years (20) Physical copy of list (name wise) of total DEOs who have been working at present in the Department of revenue since 2012 (21) Physical copy of list of DEOs inclusive of their salary details (month wise) in tabular form, working in the Department of Revenue since January, 2020 till the date.
It is inevitable to mention here that I sought only copies of some documents or records which must be available with the Department of Revenue, as per the RTI Act. Section 2(f) which states "information" means any material in any form, 5 including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
But the CPIO as well as First Appellate Authority, Department of Revenue, have completely denied to provide the desired information to me which is a violation of the provision of RTI Act, 2005."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Not present.
Both the parties were absent during hearing.
However, it was confirmed from the Registry of this bench that as per the tracking report of Postal Department, hearing notice has already been delivered to the Respondent on 04.07.2023.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of records that the Appellant vide instant RTI application expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the ground of non-receipt of supportive documents against points no. 1, 10, 15, 18, 20 & 21.
Here, the Commission upon scrutinizing the contents of RTI application finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information sought by the Appellant at point no. 1 as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon; as the query raised by the Appellant on the said point is vague and unspecific which does not even conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
6His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any 7 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Now, as regards the list of DEOs along with their salary details and names of contractors as sought for at points no. 10, 15, 18, 20 & 21 is concerned, since the disclosure of such information impinges on the privacy of the third party DEOs/contractors , therefore, it cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of 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., 8 (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..."
Having observed as above and more particularly the absence of the Appellant during hearing to buttress his case (despite receipt of hearing notice), no further relief can be granted in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission adversely viewed the conduct of CPIO in not appearing during hearing to facilitate the Bench, despite intimation. Such conduct of the CPIO merely shows his sheer disregard towards the proceedings of the Commission. In view of this, the present CPIO is directed to file a written submission to the Commission detailing categorical reasons for his non- appearance before the bench. The said written submission of the CPIO along with supportive documents, if any, should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which strict action may be taken against him as per the provisions of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 9 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10