Information regarding compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) was denied - CIC: Provide Notesheet in which final decision was taken; Material on the basis of which a decision was taken to compulsory retire the appellant to be supplied applying severability
22 Apr, 2020Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in regard to the Order No. A-47012/2/2016-HRD-I dated 10.05.2018 retiring appellant under FR 56(j):
1. Copies of complete notes and correspondent portions of the relevant file/files in regard to decision taken for the retirement of the appellant.
2. Copies of APARs for the period from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2018 and from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The appellant has stated in his second appeal that the CPIO did not provide the requisite information on point no. 1 of the RTI application.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO who had denied to share the information while claiming exemption u/s 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. He further stated that the CPIO could have provided the information after applying the doctrine of severability as embodied in Section 10(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information. of the RTI Act, 2005. To support his contention, he relied on the decision passed by the Commission vide its Order No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00419 dated 12.01.2008 by virtue of which the CPIO Deputy Secretary Services-I Branch UPSC was directed to provide the information sought with regard to noting after applying the principle of severability excluding all information other than that which concerns appellant Shri Sharma alone in providing the information sought. He submitted that this order of the Commission was also upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 13205/2009 by virtue of its order dated 29.10.2013. He prayed that in view of the provisions of the Act and also the decision of the CIC and Delhi High Court, the CPIO and the Appellate Authority may be directed to provide the requisite information after severing/obliterating information regarding assessment of other officers, including their personal information to enable him to represent his case before the Representation Committee or to seek redressal before the Court of Law against the decision to retire him under FR 56(j).
The CPIO while reiterating the contents of his reply dated 22.06.2018 explained that the information has been denied 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. since the total information contains a combined report of the Committee regarding all the persons who had been considered and recommended for Compulsory Retirement under Rule 56(j) of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972. He also showed all the relevant files to the Commission during the hearing for its perusal.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after detailed examination of the facts of the case and particularly the relevant files in which the matter has been dealt in, the Commission is not convinced with the contentions of the CPIO in toto. After perusal of the relevant records during the hearing, while the Commission is in agreement with the contentions of the CPIO that every single note-sheet is related to all the four employees who were subjected to compulsory retirement, however, that portion of the notesheet in which a final decision was taken can be supplied to the appellant, since he himself was one of the employees who were subjected to Compulsory Retirement as he was retired on the basis of a report of the Review Committee constituted in accordance with guidelines/ instructions issued by the DOPT. It is also important to mention here that even though it is prerogative of the competent authority to decide about the compulsory retirement of an employee in public interest, the employee is well within his/her rights to obtain details/factual background which led to such an action. Thus information sought by the appellant cannot be denied to him, in terms of principle of natural justice. With regard to the correspondence portion of the files, the Commission opines that the material on the basis of which a decision was taken to compulsory retire the appellant can be supplied to him as such material/documents would be in relation to an individual employee only. Under such circumstances, the CPIO is directed to examine each file thoroughly and take a considerate view so as to provide such information to the appellant that relates to him only. However, as a matter of abundant caution and taking into consideration the privacy concern of other employees, the Commission instructs the CPIO to obliterate the details relating to the third parties as per Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide such information to the appellant which is related to him only within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent may redact the name/s of Review Committee members and/or details of other employees who have similarly been retired under FR 56(j) of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972 and Rule 48 of the Rules and supply the portion relevant and referring to the appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: R C Kalra v. Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade/CPIO(HRD - I), Ministry of Commerce & Industry in Decision no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/155663/03171, Date of Decision: 31/03/2020