Information about some complaints made against a government official & any possible action the authorities might have taken on them was sought - CIC: information is of personal nature relating to the employee & as no larger public purpose demonstrated
4 Apr, 2015Information sought:-
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000818
I am in receipt of letter no. 22-461/13-RTI dated 30/08/2013 together with copy of U.O. no. 8- 1/2011/WB/VM-IV dated 16/08/2013. Under RTI Act 2005, I would like to have the following information:
1- Copy of final order issued against the chargesheet of Shri. S. N. Pande if the same has attained its finality.
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001164
I am in receipt of letter no. 19-490/10-RTI dated 22/09/2011 enclosing therewith copy of internal note sheet mentioning therein about administrative warning given to the employee to be careful in future. Under RTI act, I would like to have following information;
1- Information if as per CCA/CCS rules, administrative warning given to the employee will have zero value on his career in BSNL or it will have any impact in any manner in his career graph.
2- Information or background document which was followed by competent authority while awarding administrative warning of this case of proved negligence.
3- Information after award of administrative warning was there any set back on the employees carrier or administrative warning had no impact.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has denied the information 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.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Mr. K. S. Jain through VC
Respondent: Mr. H S Rawat ACPIO & Mr. P K Garg
The appellant stated that the information sought in both the appeals is interrelated and they may be heard together and disposed of by a common order. He stated that as an aggrieved party he had lodged a complaint against a corrupt officer which was enquired into by the public authority and he wants to know the logical conclusion of his complaint. He further stated that the entire proceedings are over and since he is the complainant he is entitled to the information. He vehemently argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Deshpande’s matter is irrelevant and does not apply to the appeals on hand before the Commission as he is the complainant/aggrieved party and not a third party. The ACPIO contested the appellant’s submission arguing that the issue is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande’s matter and in absence of larger public purpose, the information sought is exempt 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.
Decision notice:
It is seen that a Coordinate Bench of the Commission in a similar matter vide its decision dated 26/06/2013 [file no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 Manoj Arya vs. Cabinet Secretariat] has held as under:
“4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application and the order of the Appellate Authority. We have also considered the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in the case. The entire information sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an officer of the government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. The Appellate Authority was very right in deciding that this entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this connection, it is very pertinent to cite the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs CIC and others) in which it has held that “the performance of an employee/Officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest. The information sought by the Appellant in this case is about some complaints made against a government official and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. It is, thus, clearly the kind of information which is envisaged in the above Supreme Court order. Therefore, the information is completely exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act which both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have rightly cited in their respective orders.”
The appellant has vehemently argued that being the complainant /aggrieved person he is not a third party and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Deshpande’s matter does not apply to the appeals on hand before the Commission. This reasoning of the appellant is flawed. The complaint, though lodged by appellant, relates to a third party (viz. the employee) and the action taken on his complaint by the department is information of personal nature relating to the employee and as no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant, 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. 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. The matters are closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. K. S. Jain v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000818+001164/6667