Inspection of personal file of third party
The Appellant was charged with tempering with the personal file of Mr. V. K. Mathur. To defend himself he sought an inspection of the said file, the name and designation of the officer for keeping the personal files and also details of any FIR which may have been filed / any penal action in regard to the absence of the file in the office etc. The inspection of personal file was denied by the PIO claiming 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. of the RTI Act.
View of the CIC
The Commission held that if the Appellant has been charged with tempering with the said file, it is obvious that he would have seen it. In view of this, the Commission rejected the refusal of inspection of the said file to the Appellant. The PIO stated that since no period has been mentioned he is unable to provide the name of the officer. The PIO is directed to provide the information regarding the name and designation of the officer who were responsible for keeping the personal files during the year 2006 and 2007.
Citation: Mr. Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab & Sind Bank in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002453/15997