CIC: File Noting are open and not fiduciary or personal in nature - CIC: The respondent contention is not correct i.e. the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act
11 Apr, 2015Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding irregularities of recruitment to the post of DGM
(tech.), copy of Inquiry report and copies of communications made with the CVC and the replies received.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both the parties are present. Appellant sought the above information by filing an RTI application dated 07.08.2013. PIO vide reply dated 09.09.2013 informed that the matter is exempt 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. and Section 11 of RTI Act 2005. The FAA disposed of the first appeal vide order 25.10.2013, with observation that the information sought by the appellant contains noting in which the views and opinions have been recorded by various officers, who have contributed to the process of conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the 7 negligent officers which cannot be disclosed and upheld the decision of the PIO. Being not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission. The appellant submitted that the information was relating to him, so the same could have been provided to him and requested to provide the same. Respondent submits that the file containing the information and decision pertains to the appellant himself and other charged officers, and hence it is personal in nature. He further submits that the information sought by the appellant contains noting in which the views and opinions have been recorded by various officers, who have contributed to the process of conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the 7 negligent officers which is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed to the appellant.
Decision:
The respondent’s main contention in denying the information to the appellant is that the file noting are internal communication & personal in nature and thus, not accessible under the RTI Act. In Union of India Vs. R. S. Khan. W.P.(C) 9355/2009 & CM No. 7144/2009, Justice S. Murlidhar of Delhi High Court had observed that: - “10.... This Court concurs with the view expressed by the CIC that in the context of a government servant performing official functions and making on a file about the performance or conduct of another officer, such noting cannot be said to be given to the government pursuant to a `fiduciary relationship with the government within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; is, at best, ‟ a ground to deny information to a third party on the ground that the information sought concerns a government servant, which information is available with the government pursuant to a fiduciary relationship, that such person, has with the government, as an employee........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
17. As regards 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. , there is no question that notings made in the files by government servants in discharge of their official functions is definitely a public activity and concerns the larger public interest....”
It is clear from the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as stated above, File Noting are open and not fiduciary or personal in nature. The respondent contention is not correct i.e. the file noting are internal communication and not accessible under the RTI Act. In view of above, the Commission does not accept the grounds taken by the respondents for denial of information. The Commission directs the respondents to provide the information to the appellant, to the extent not already provided in relation to his RTI application within a period of two weeks of receipt of this order, after redacting names of officers who wrote the notes or made entries in the concerned files, under intimation to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of accordingly
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation : Shri D.P. Majhi v. Director/CPIO, Transport Bhawan and NHAI, New Delhi IN F.No.CIC/YA/A/2014/000517