PIO: Information other than CR & service records of the employees was supplied - CIC: Such information is in the nature of personal information which is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) unless the disclosure would be in ‘public interest’
4 Feb, 2015Information sought:-
The appellant had sought following information related to telephone nos. 22134381 and 22573320. He had given a letter on 16/08/2013 to Sanchar Hat Dilshad Garden for change of Postal Address of these telephones:
1. How much time the department takes in making changes in the address of the consumers?
2. To which officer my letter for change of address dated 16/08/2013 was sent and what action he/she has taken on it?
3. The one who receives call and the lady sitting beside him says this is not the right way of changing the address. Kindly provide the correct procedure of changing the address.
4. Kindly provide name, designation and details of these two employees?
5. What action the department takes against the officers who misbehave with consumers?
6. Whether any departmental action was taken against these employees?
7. Kindly provide the time by which these officers come to office and their duty responsibilities.
8. Whether above two officers enter their in and out time in the register or not. If not under which rule?
9. Provide details of leave these two officers have taken in the last 03 years?
10. Provide copy of CR of these two officers for 05 years?
11.Name and address of the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Ved Ram PIO & Mr. Jai Bhagwan
The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing but he is absent. The PIO stated that all the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 19/10/2013 other than copies of CR & service records of Smt. Usha Walia and Shri Krishan Pal has been supplied to him vide letter dated 29/04/2014. As regards CR & service records of the employees the PIO stated that the appellant was offered an inspection but has not availed the opportunity. The PIO submitted that subsequently he has come across some court orders which exempt information relating to service records and CR of employees. In support of his contention the PIO quoted Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s decision dated 22/08/2013 (WP No. 1825 of 2013 Subhash Bajirao Khemnar vs. Shri Dilip Nayku Thorat & Others) and claimed exemption 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. of the RTI Act.
Decision notice:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide its decision dated 22/08/2013 (WP No. 1825 of 2013 Subhash Bajirao Khemnar vs. Shri Dilip Nayku Thorat & Others) has held “that the Chief Information Commissioner was not justified in directing the Information Officer to supply personal information in respect of the service record, income tax returns and assets of the petitioner unless the Commissioner was satisfied that the disclosure of the information was justified in larger public interest.” Information such as CR and service records of employees is in the nature of personal information. The basic protection afforded by virtue of exemption from disclosure of personal information enacted 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. of the RTI Act cannot be lifted or disturbed unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’. The PIO has submitted that the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 19/10/2013, other than CR & service records of the employees, has been supplied. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and demonstrate that the disclosure of CR & service records is in larger public interest. It being so, the information need not be disclosed. The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Mahendra Kumar Agrawal v. MTNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000342/6500