Information relating to transfer application of employees were denied u/s 8(1)(j) as third parties had objected to disclosure - CIC: the specific ground for transfer is personal in nature; not to be disclosed in the absence of any larger public interest
15 Apr, 2014Facts:
1.The appellant, Shri Hans Raj, has submitted RTI application dated 7 September 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ludhiana; seeking information relating to the transfer application of Ms. Ritu Verma, Asstt., SR No. 187466 and Monika Rani, Asstt. Sr. No. 187468 who have been transferredin that division from Karnal Division.
2. Vide order dated 15 October 2012, CPIO denied the information on the ground that the information sought was third party information and the third parties concerned hadnot given their consent for furnishing the information. Hence, it was denied under Ss. 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. & 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 08 November 2012, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 4 December 2012; the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above responseof the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. Theappellant, Shri Hans Raj, made submissions from Panipat. The respondent Shri CL Mahe, CPIO and CRM made submissions from Chandigarh. The appellant submitted that he is seekinginformation regarding the grounds/ reasons for the transfer of Ms. Ritu Verma, Assistant and Ms Monika Rani, Assistant who have been transferred from Karnal Division to Chandigarh Division. .
6. The respondent submitted that the information sought is‘personal information’ of the third party and may not beprovided to the appellant as it attracts 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, 2005.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission upholds the CPIO’s decision that the information sought regarding the specific grounds for transferof Ms. Ritu Verma, Assistant and Ms. Monika Rani, Assistant is personal in nature and may not be disclosed under the RTI Actin the absence of any larger public interest in the said disclosure.
8. The CPIO is however, directed to provide a copy of the Transfer Policy / Guidelines of the public authority to theappellant within 10 days of the receipt of the order of theCommission, free of cost.
9. With the above directions, the case is closed at theCommission’s end.
(ManjulaPrasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Hans Raj v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000572/MP