Information regarding reinstatement of a suspended General Manager was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) - CIC: Appellant has not shown any public interest warranting the disclosure of third party personal information which is voluminous; appeal dismissed
16 Mar, 2014ORDER
1. The Appellant through an RTI application dated 09.01.2013 sought certain information (like, copies of suspension order, charge sheet, reply to charge sheet; details of inquiry; minutes of inquiry committee; note sheet; files; registers evidence; computer records and so on) regarding reinstatement of one Shri P.R. Deshmukh, General Manager who, according to the Appellant, was earlier placed under suspension by the public authority.
2. The CPIO vide his letter dated 16.02.2013 declined the disclosure of information in respect of point No. (1)(i) of the RTI application to the Appellant under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. As for point No.2, he stated that disclosure of information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. He, in support, cited section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act. As for point no. (1)(ii), the CPIO forwarded the reply dated 25.01.2013 given by the concerned section to the Appellant.
3. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dated 14.03.2013 before the Appellate authority which the Appellate Authority decided vide his order dated 10.04.2013 holding that the information, which could have been given, has been given to the Appellant and that what has not been given is the information which cannot been given under sections 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; , 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 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act.
4. The Appellant thereafter filed the present appeal before the Commission challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.
5. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, the Commission notes that the information sought by the Appellant, besides being voluminous in nature, disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority in terms of section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act, also relates to personal information of third party. It has no relationship to any public activity or interest and, it would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third party/individual, if disclosed.
6. The Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission and Ors.; SLP (C) No. 27734 of 2012; dated 03.10.2012, while dealing with such nature of information, had observed as follows:
“13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization 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 theother hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual…”
7. Moreover, the Appellant has also not shown any bona fide public interest warranting the disclosure of the information.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Ajay Kum v. Bhilai Steel Plant in Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001819SS