Certified copies of all file nothings and records relating to appellants dismissal denied by PIO u/s 8(1)(j) - no first appeal filed before FAA - CIC: the order passed by the CPIO is patently illegal and set aside - hearing to respondents dispensed with
7 Oct, 2013Facts :
The appellant had filed the RTI application dated 11.7.2013 with the PIO of Power Finance Corporation Ltd (PFCL herein-after), seeking the following information:-
“1. I joined M/s Power Finance Corporation Ltd in December 1993 as Assistant Manager (Finance). I rose to the rank of Deputy General Manager in 2009 by dint of hard work, personal integrity and professional merit. I, however, was unceremoniously dismissed from service on flimsy and cooked up charges in violation of the principle of natural justice and the Constitution of India.
2. In exercise my rights u/s 6 of the RTI Act, I request you to provide me certified copies of all the file nothings and records relating to my dismissal including all the correspondence in this regard.
3. I hereby state that the information requested by me is not prohibited from disclosure under any provision of the RTI Act.”
2. The PIO of PFCL had responded to it vide letter dated 8.8.2013 refusing to disclose the requested information. The relevant portion of his letter is extracted below: -
“This is with reference to your application dated 11.07.2013 (received on 12.07.2013) seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding certified copies of all the file notings and records relating to your dismissal including all the correspondence in this regard. In this regard, we wish to inform you that the information desired by you has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the same is therefore, exempted from disclosure 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. 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 Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the above, the information sought by you cannot be disclosed.”
3. The appellant has not filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority and has filed the present appeal before this Commission straightaway. In the appeal memo filed before this Commission, the appellant has contended that the order passed by the CPIO is patently illegal and against the statutory provisions. He has also contended that he has been dismissed from service by PFCL management mala-fidely and for extraneous reasons and that he does not expect justice and fair play from the First Appellate Authority compelling him to seek justice from this Commission.
4. Ordinarily, I would have remanded this matter to the First Appellate Authority for an appropriate decision in the matter with liberty to the appellant to move this Commission again in case of his dissatisfaction with the order of the FAA but I am not doing so as the order passed by the CPIO is patently illegal and cannot be allowed to stand for reasons mentioned herein-after. I may also add that I am also dispensing with the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties as in my opinion, it is not going to serve any useful purpose in view of the patent illegality of the order passed by PIO. I have, therefore, decided to pass an order in this matter on the basis of material on record.
5. As per RTI application, the appellant joined PFCL as Assistant Manager in 1993. He rose to the rank of Deputy General Manager in 2009 by dint of hard work, personal integrity and professional merit. It is the allegation of the appellant that he was unceremoniously dismissed from service on cooked up charges in violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed by law. All that he had requested the CPIO was to furnish him certified copies of the file notings and records relating to his dismissal from service. However, as noted above, the CPIO refused to disclose this information 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. 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. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant is seeking information regarding his own dismissal from service and not regarding the dismissal of a third party. In the circumstances, application of 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. 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. is not sustainable in law.
6. Clause (j) of section 8(1) is reproduced below :- “(j) 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.”
7. In a catena of decisions, this Commission has held that an information seeker can seek information relating to himself and not relating to a third party without following the procedure of section 11(1). This is based on sound logic. When he is seeking information about himself, he is not causing unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any third party. It bears repetition that the appellant is seeking information about his own dismissal from service and not about any third party. By seeking this information, he is not causing invasion of privacy of any third party. In my opinion, this is the correct interpretation of clause (j). In view of this application of clause (j) by the CPIO in denying information to the appellant is totally unjustified.
8. It may be apt to refer to certain decisions rendered by this Commission in such like matters. In Col. V.K. Shad –Vs- Indian Army (File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000617), Col. Shad was given a non-recordable censure by the competent authority. He had sought copies of the file notings of HQ Western Command and HQ 2 Corps etc. as also the opinion and findings of the Court of Inquiry. This information was denied to him at the level of CPIO and the FAA. However, this Bench set aside the orders of the CPIO and AA and ordered disclosure of requested information to Col. Shad. Para 07 of the said order is reproduced below :- “7. It is incontrovertible that no proceedings are pending against the appellant at present. Hence, the matter is not covered under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. It would also not be correct to say that the officers made notings in the files in fiduciary capacity. The notings were made in ordinary course and constitute official records of the units/formations concerned. In this view of the matter, the file notings are disclosable to the appellant. Even so, in view of the special attributes of the Armed Forces and their Command structure, it would not be expedient to disclose the identity and designations of the officers who made notings in the files as it may adversely affect the spirit de corps of the officer cadre. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I hereby order that the entire information requested for by the appellant, as extracted above, may be supplied to him subject to the proviso that the names and designations of the officers who made notings in the files would be obliterated in terms of 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. 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.”
9. It may also be pertinent to mention that the Union of India had filed WP(C) 499/2012 and CM 1059/2012 against the aforesaid order of this Commission in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court in judgment dated 9.11.2012 had upheld the decision of this Bench. The operative para of the order is extracted below :- “25. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the CIC are sustained. The information sought by Messers V.K. Shad and Ors will be supplied within two weeks from today, in terms of the orders passed by the CIC..”
10. The ratio of the above decisions squarely applies in the present case.
11. I would like to refer to another case in this context i.e. S.K. Sahni –Vs- Indian Army (File Nos. CIC/LS/A/2012/002157, 002158 & 002159). The appellant was a Lieutenant General in the Army. He was court martialled and held guilty for various acts of omission and commission and inflicted punishment of imprisonment of three years. Through his RTI applications, he had sought copy of the Court of Inquiry, copy of the file notings and copy of the correspondence relating to his dismissal from service and infliction of imprisonment. This information was denied to him at the level of CPIO and First Appellate Authority. The matter came up before this Commission and this Bench in order dated 15.1.2013 held that as the Court Martial proceedings had been completed against the appellant(Lt. Genl. S.K. Sahni) in all respects, the requested information could not be denied to him under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The operative para of the order is extracted below :- “30. To sum up, I hold that the proceedings against the appellant have been completed in all respects and that disclosure of requested information will not cause any prejudice to the proceedings pending against Col. Pramod Kumar and Col. Pant. I also hold that requested information, including JAG opinion, is not barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. In view of the above, I hereby direct the CPIO of the Army Headquarters to requisition the information requested for by the appellant in para 25 above from the concerned HQs viz. 11 Corps, Western Command and the Army HQs. and supply it to the appellant in a consolidated form on payment of requisite fee. Even so, in view of the special attributes of the Armed Forces and their Command structure, it would not be expedient to disclose identity and designation of officers who made notings in the files as it may adversely affect spirit de corps of the officer cadre. Hence, the CPIO will be at liberty to obliterate the names and designations of such officers in terms of 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. 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.”
12. As noted above, the appellant is seeking information about his own dismissal from service; he is not seeking information about a third party. Disclosure of requested information is not likely to cause invasion of privacy of any third party. Further more, the departmental proceedings have been concluded against him in all respects and nothing more is pending. Hence, denial of information under clause (j) of section 8(1) by the CPIO is totally illegal and unjustified. In my opinion, the order passed by the CPIO is patently illegal and unjustified and it cannot be allowed to stand and warrants to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside the order of the CPIO and direct him to provide certified photo copies of the information/documents requested for by the appellant, in 04 weeks time.
(M.L. Sharma )
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Sunil Bhasin v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd; in File No.CIC/LS/C/2013/000061