CIC: the copy of the transfer orders of an employee is in relation to the public activity and hence to be disclosed; the copies of the applications for transfer made by the employees are ‘personal information’ and may not be disclosed under RTI
1. The appellant, Shri Sudesh Kumar, submitted RTI application dated 27 February 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; Dehradun; seeking information regarding transfer of Smt. Geeta Arya, Assitant, from Dehradun to Lucknow, through a total of 4 points.
2. Vide reply dated 21 March 2013, CPIO denied the information to the appellant u/s 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, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 16 April 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 30 April 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Sudesh Kumar, was not present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri D.N. Sakarwal, CPIO joined late at the hearing and made submissions from Dehradun.
5. The appellant in his written submission had sought information regarding copy of the application of her transfer, transfer orders and overtime amount paid to Ms. Geeta Arya, an employee of the public authority along with same information in case of other employees.
6. The CPIO submitted that he took action u/s 11 (1) of the RTI Act and had informed the third party to the case about the information sought in the RTI application. However, the third party i.e., Ms. Geeta Arya has denied the disclosure of her personal information. Hence, the information sought may not be provided to the appellant. Also, there is no system of paying overtime allowance in their office.
7. The Commission is of the view that the copy of the transfer orders of Ms. Geeta Arya and other employees is in relation to the public activity and hence may be provided to the appellant. However, the copies of the applications for transfer made by the employees are ‘personal information’ and may not be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005.
8. The CPIO is directed to provide the copy of the transfer orders of Ms. Geeta Arya and other employees to the appellant. The CPIO will confirm his submission that there is no system of OTA in their office in writing. The information as above is to be provided within 10 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
Citation: Shri Sudesh Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001256/MP