Information pertaining to attendance, leave record, date of appointment in respect of an employee of THDC was denied - CIC: Information pertaining to the leave applications of an employee is personal in nature & has no relationship to any public interest
25 Jan, 2019O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), THDC India Limited, Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand seeking information on eleven points pertaining to attendance, leave record, date of appointment, etc. in respect of one Shri Khima Nand Gairola, an employee of THDC, including, inter-alia, (i) the attendance record of Shri Khima Nand Gairola from 01.12.2016 to 26.04.2017, and (ii) a copy of the application(s) given by Shri Khima Nand Gairola for availing leave from 01.12.2016 to 26.04.2017.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied the information on the plea that it is third party information and is also in the nature of a fiduciary relationship. The appellant stated that the CPIO did not give his name and designation/post held by him in his reply and also did not provide the name, address and designation of the FAA which is to be provided mandatorily by the PIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him, to impose a penalty on the CPIO for not providing the information and to derive compensation from the CPIO for the loss suffered by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Dharmendra Prasad Gairola and the respondent Shri V.K. Gupta, Assistant General Manager, THDC India Limited, Tehri, Uttarakhand attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO had denied the information sought for in the RTI application on the ground that it was related to a third party and the respondent held such information in a fiduciary capacity. The appellant further submitted that after he filed the instant second appeal, the respondent provided information on all points except on point nos. B, E and J of the RTI application. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information as sought by him.
5. The respondent submitted that after the appellant filed the instant second appeal, information was provided to him vide letter dated 09.08.2017. However, since the appellant had sought information relating to leave applications, assets and liabilities, and medical bills vide point nos. B, E and J of the RTI application, respectively, in respect of Shri Khima Nand Gairola, the same was denied on the ground that it is related to a third party.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that though the respondent had initially denied the entire information sought by appellant vide his RTI application on the ground that it is related to a third party and is held in fiduciary relationship, subsequently, the information sought for, except on point nos. B, E and J of the RTI application, was provided to the appellant.
7. The Commission further observes that disclosing information pertaining to the leave applications of Shri Khima Nand Gairola, as sought by the appellant vide point no. B of RTI application, is personal in nature and has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. In regard to point no. E, the Commission observes that in the matter of Allahabad Bank vs. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi, [W. P. (C) No. 906/2012- judgment dated 09.07.2013], Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:
“It would, thus, be seen that the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of an employee, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rules applicable to him qualifies as personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the Act and such information cannot be directed to be disclosed unless the CPIO/PIO/Appellate Authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information.
8. In view of the above-cited judgment, the information sought by the appellant, vide point no. E of the RTI application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Further, the information sought vide point no. J of RTI application is also personal in nature as per the order dated 19.12.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal [W.P. (C)1842/2012]:
“The extent of medical reimbursement to an individual is also, in one sense, personal information as it would disclose the extent of medical services availed by an individual. Thus, unless a larger public interest is shown to be served there is no necessity for providing such information.”
9. Therefore, the Commission observes that an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dharmendra Prasad Gairola v. THDC India Ltd., Tehri, Tehri Garhwal (U.K) in Second Appeal No. CIC/THDCL/A/2017/157359, Date:12.12.2018