CIC: PIO & FAA have erred in providing the information related to the third party - CIC: Insistence to certify the documents regarding the third party’s service matter would be unwarranted; PIO & FAA to acquaint themselves well with the RTI provisions

CIC: PIO & FAA have erred in providing the information related to the third party especially in the absence of any larger public interest without even following the process laid down u/s 11

CIC: Insistence of the Appellant to certify the documents which were already provided to him in the manner desired by him or any further disclosure with respect to the third party’s service matter to be a grossly unwarranted prayer

CIC: PIO & FAA are advised to acquaint themselves well with the provisions of the RTI Act to ensure appropriate disposal of RTI matters in the future

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:

Part I

1. Please provide me attested photocopy of entire office note sheet put up by officials/officers of PEA section of PA Wing together with orders of competent authority on my case of stepping up of pay based on which office memorandum no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021 was issued to me by Director (Accounts), PA Wing, Postal Directorate, New Delhi.

2. In said office memorandum no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021, it has been mentioned that "Sh. B.C. Sati ex-ADG who has been promoted as regular AO on 31-12-2007 and pay fixed in GP 5400 @ 20650+5400=26050/- in accordance to FR22 (1)(a)(i) has further been conferred MACP III on 01-09- 2008 in the same GP 5400/- and pay has again been fixed by giving 3% increment benefit. As per DoPT OM 35034/3/2008-Estt (D) dated 19-05-2009 on MACPS financial up gradation under the scheme will be admissible whenever an official/officer has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay. In the instant case he has been conferred MACP III just after lapse of one year eight months of getting promotion which seems to be irregular. This irregular conferment of MACP III has resulted in an anomaly and Shri B.C. Sati ex-ADG continued to be drawn higher pay continuously since 01-09-2008." In this context, kindly provide attested copy of relevant ruling/orders under which this MACP III granted to Shri Sati, ex-ADG is presumed irregular by PA Wing.

3. In the stated OM no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021, it has been mentioned that Shri B.C. Sati ex-ADG continued to be drawn higher pay continuously since 01-09-2008. In this context, kindly intimate action taken by F'A Wing along with Office note sheet and order of competent authority for rectification of this irregular stated MACP lil

4. Kindly provide substantive pay and cadre of Shri B C. Sati ex-ADG on the following dates before issue of office memorandum no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA1039 dated 10-09-2021: As or 01-07-2016, 01-01-2017, 01-01-2018 and 01-01- 2019.

5. Kindly provide substantive pay and cadre of Shri B C. Sati ex-ADG on the following dates after issue of office memorandum no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021 (rectifying irregular stated MACPIII, if any): As on 01-07- 2016, 01-01-2017, 01-01-2018 and 01-01-2019.

6. Finally, approved substantive and officiating pay of Shri B.C. Sati ex ADG in JTS and STS cadre on the following dates by taking effect of OM no. 51- 08/2021/PA. PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021:

01-07-2016

01-01-2017

01-01-2018

01-01-2019

7.

(a). It is learnt that on the subject Shri B.C. Sati has sent a letter dated 25-09- 2021 to senior DDG (PAF) by E-mail (copy enclosed). Kindly provide a copy of note sheet and order of competent authority while disposing this letter.

(b). Also provide an attested copies of entire subsequent correspondences made with Shri B.C. Sati-ex ADG by PEA section on his further representations (if any) in view of OM no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021.

8. Final decision of PEA Section along with the order of competent authority in respect of substantive and officiating pay of Shri B.C. Sati, ex-ADG as on 01-01- 2019 by taking effect of OM no. 51-08/2021/PA PEA-1039 dated 10-09-2021.

Part II

1.

a) My initial representation dated 28-07-2020 for stepping up of pay was sent to Senior DDG (PAF) vide Speed Post letter no. ER091782619 IN dated 28-07- 2020. Kindly provide the receipt number and date of receipt of this letter in PA Wing along with an attested copy of the letter.

(b) My representation dated 28-07-2020 was also sent through GM (Finance), PAO Jaipur vide letter number Admin/Acs/GE/Sh. R.L. Sharma/3965/3966 dated 14-08-2020. Kindly intimate receipt number and date of receipt in PA Wing. An attested copy of this letter may be provided under RTI Act 2005.

2. My stepping up case was subsequently sent to ADG SEA I DOT vide letter number 1-1-2014 PA (PEA) 2754-56 dated 08-09-2020. Please provide me a photocopy of office note sheet put up by officials/officers of PEA section of PA Wing together with orders of competent authority.

3. Provide an attested copy of the reply received from DoT in response to DOP letter number 1-1-2014 PA (PEA) 2754-56 dated 08-09-2020.

4. Subsequently, my case was sent to GM (Finance), PAO Jaipur vide DOP letter number 1-1/2014/PA (PEA) 8561-63 dated 22-12-2020. Please provide me a photocopy of office note sheet put up by officials/officers of PEA section of PA Wing together with orders of competent authority.

5. (a) My case was subsequently returned by GM (Finance), PAO Jaipur vide letter number Admn/A/Cs/GE/Sh. R.L Sharma/8228-8229 dated 02-03-2021 along with comparative statement and service book. Kindly provide an attested copy of this letter under RTI Act, 2005. (b). Kindly intimate further movement of my service book sent to your office vide GM (Finance) Jaipur letter no. Admn/A/Cs/GE/Sh. R.L. Sharma/8228-8229 dated 02-03-2021. In case it is returned to PAO, Jaipur, kindly provide an attested copy of forwarding letter sent to PAO, Jaipur along with registered letter number and date of dispatch.

6. I have reminded my case subsequently on dates 31-03-2021 (Speed post no. ER117913251IN dated 01-04-2021) and 25-06-2021 (Speed post number ER067820170IN dated 25-06-2021). Kindly provide the receipt number and date of receipt of these letters in PA Wing along with an attested copies of the letters.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.08.2022 stating that the available information is attached therewith.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 21.09.2022 provided a point-wise input on each point of the RTI Application along with enclosing copies of documents.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 15.12.2022.

5. The Appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Ashok Kumar Khanna, ACAO & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant submitted that the complete information as requested in the RTI Application has not been provided by the Respondent in the certified form as desired by him.

7. The Respondent submitted that the available and permissible information has been provided to the Appellant and if the Commission directs the certified copy of documents can be again provided.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the information sought for at Part I of the RTI Application stands squarely 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. of the RTI Act As it relates to the personal information of a third party. Moreover, the CPIO & FAA have erred in providing the information related to the third party especially in the absence of any larger public interest apparent from the said disclosure without even following the process laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which provides for seeking the consent of the third parties if the CPIO intends to disclose their personal information. In this regard, the attention of the parties 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) 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 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…”

9. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds the insistence of the Appellant to certify the documents which were already provided to him in the manner desired by him or any further disclosure with respect to the third party’s service matter to be a grossly unwarranted prayer, As regards, Part II of the RTI Application, the Commission does not find any scope of intervention with the information or the manner in which the information has been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO & FAA. The CPIO & FAA are nonetheless advised to acquaint themselves well with the provisions of the RTI Act to ensure appropriate disposal of RTI Applications & First Appeal(s), respectively, in the future.

10. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rameshwar Lal Sharma v. Department of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2022/159587; Date of Decision: 14.12.2023