Information about an employee was sought claiming that he got the job by submitting forged documents - PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) and 11 - CIC: Appellant failed to substantiate his claim by submitting any document to support of his contentions

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

Converted from the application

·  पंकज वाधूरिया पिता जगन्नाथ वाधूरिया, DEPT: MECHANICAL, STN-KTT, BILL-3604494 BU Description: DR/KIT NAME OF EMPLOYEE: PANKAJ KUMAR VADHURIYA DESIGNATION: (RUNNING) LOCO PILOT (GOODS) EMPLOYEE NUMBER: 454P1286623 पद पर कार्यरत है

 कृपया यह जानकारी प्रदान करें कि पंकज वाधूरिया, पिता जगन्नाथ वाधूरिया, ने सरकारी (रनिंग) लोको पायलट की नौकरी प्राप्त करने के समय कौन-कौन से दस्तावेज जमा किए थे। उनके प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि प्रदान करने की कृपा करें।

·  कृपया यह प्रमाणित दस्तावेज प्रदान करें जिससे यह स्पष्ट हो कि पंकज वाधूरिया ने सरकारी (रनिंग) लोको पायलट की नौकरी किस आरक्षित वर्ग (कैटेगरी) के अंतर्गत प्राप्त की थी।

·  कृपया यह प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि प्रदान करें जो यह दर्शाए कि पंकज वाधूरिया ने सरकारी (रनिंग) लोको पायलट की नौकरी प्राप्त करने के लिए कौन सा मूल निवास प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था।

·  कृपया पंकज वाधूरिया द्वारा सरकारी (रनिंग) लोको पायलट की नौकरी प्राप्त करने के समय जमा किए गए सभी शैक्षिक दस्तावेज, जैसे 10वीं, 12वीं, स्नातक प्रमाण पत्र, जाति प्रमाण पत्र, मूल निवास प्रमाण पत्र आदि, की प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि प्रदान करने की कृपा करें।

·  कृपया पंकज वाधूरिया द्वारा सरकारी (रनिंग) लोको पायलट की नौकरी प्राप्त करने के समय भरे गए सभी सेवा संबंधी फॉर्म की प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि प्रदान करने की कृपा करें।

Loosely translated in English

Request for Information Regarding Employment Details of Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya

1.      This is to certify that Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya, son of Jagannath Vadhuriya, is employed in the Mechanical Department at Station KTT under Bill No. 3604494.

o    BU Description: DR/KIT

o    Employee Name: Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya

o    Designation: (Running) Loco Pilot (Goods)

o    Employee Number: 454P1286623

2.      Kindly provide certified copies of all the documents submitted by Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya at the time of obtaining the government job as a (Running) Loco Pilot.

3.      Kindly provide certified copies of the documents that confirm the reservation category (if any) under which Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya was appointed as a (Running) Loco Pilot in the government service.

4.      Kindly provide certified copies of the Domicile Certificate submitted by Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya at the time of obtaining the government job as a (Running) Loco Pilot.

5.      Kindly provide certified copies of all educational qualification documents, such as 10th, 12th, graduation certificates, caste certificate, domicile certificate, etc., submitted by Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya at the time of obtaining the government job as a (Running) Loco Pilot.

6.      Kindly provide certified copies of the service forms filled by Pankaj Kumar Vadhuriya at the time of obtaining the government job as a (Running) Loco Pilot.

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.07.2023 stating as under:

आवेदक द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना तीसरे पक्ष से संबंधित है, जिसे प्रदान करने से ने लिखित घोषणा पत्र देकर अस्वीकार कर दिया है (संबंधित दस्तावेज संलग्न हैं)। अतः, यह सूचना सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: के तहत प्रदान किए जाने योग्य नहीं है।

Loosely translated in English

Response from the CPIO (Dated: 07.07.2023)

The CPIO responded to the appellant stating that the requested information falls under the third-party category, and as per official procedure, four employees have submitted a written declaration denying consent for sharing the information (relevant documents attached).

Therefore, under Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the requested information cannot be provided as it pertains to a third party.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.08.2023. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Suprakash, Sr. Divisional Officer/CPIO, appeared through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent as desired information was not provided. He stated that he sought information about Shri Pankaj Vadhuria who got the job by submitting forged certificates/document.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information on the ground of third-party information.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, note that the appellant sought information regarding Shri Pankaj Vadhuria, an employee of the respondent public authority.

The respondent denied the information on the ground of it being third-party information and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) and section 11 of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that Shri Pankaj Vadhuria got the job in the respondent office by submitting forged certificates/documents. Therefore, he pleaded for disclosure of information.

Perusal of the case records reveal that the appellant has not made any complaint in the respondent office regarding forged certificates/documents submitted by Shri Pankaj Vadhuria for getting job in the respondent department. He directly filed the RTI application and sought aforesaid documents wherein he did not allege about submission of forged documents by Shri Pankaj Vadhuria at the time of his appointment. The appellant failed to substantiate his claim by submitting any documents to support of his contentions. Moreover, he also failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information.

The Commission would like to refer the extract in the matter of Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.

Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P. (C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-

"18. Prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the enactment of the RTI Act this requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act abolishes the concept of locus standi as under section 6(2) of the RTI Act no reasons need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public authority or its employees is public information.

19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. Even Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible.

Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:

"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252] ). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].

23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."

In view of the above observations and in the absence of any larger public interest, the Commission finds that reply given by the respondent is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Vivek Kumar v. West Central Railway, CIC/WECRL/A/2023/144018; Date of Decision : 21.02.2025