Claiming himself to be a social worker, the appellant sought information like the complaints received against an officer since his joining the service, educational qualifications, caste, children’s education details, bank accounts etc - CIC: Appeal closed
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. S.K.Paul, FSO, on behalf of PIO (N).
2. The appellant through his RTI application dt 3.9.2013 is seeking information with regard to Mandal Officer4 of Food Supply through following points:
i. When he has been appointed by Delhi department and what post hold by him since then;
ii. From the date of appointment, offices to which he has been transferred and when;
iii. Complaint reports of several complaints made against him,
iv. Movable and immovable property held by him and his family;
v. School from which his children educated;
vi. No of enquiry conducted by him till now;
vii. Date on which he hold the post of Mandal Officer 4 and copy of his visiting diary.
CPIO on 24.9.2013 replied that information is not available with their department. Being aggrieved by the CPIO reply, the appellant made first appeal on 26.9.2013. FAA on 21.11.2013 upheld the CPIO reply. Unsatisfied with the CPIO reply, the appellant made second appeal before the Commission.
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant is seeking information relating to an officer by name, Mr. S.K.Paul, FSO, Circle4, who himself is representing the Public Authority in the hearing before the Commission today. The appellant says he wants to know about the complaints received against him since his joining the service, his educational qualifications, his caste certificate, his children’s education details, his bank accounts including his wife, etc. When the Commission queried him about the public interest involved in this case, as he is after only one officer, the appellant could not convince the Commission, except saying that he is a social worker, without giving any details of his social work done so far. The Commission appreciated the respondent officer, Mr. S.K.Paul, as he himself is present to represent the Public Authority. The Commission asked him to explain what is the personal information, that he considers, that cannot be shared with the appellant. He submitted that according to him, the following is his personal information:
(a) the quantum of gold and silver ornaments held by him and his family;
(b) his children’s education details;
(c) his bank account and that of his wife;
(d) his movable and immovable property details held by him in Delhi and outside Delhi
(e) the source of income for educating his children, etc.
The Commission has perused the record available in the file. The Commission observes that the appellant needs all the personal details of the officer mentioned above including the complaints against him, inquiry report, different postings given to him since joining, the details of his visiting diary, etc. The Commission considers that the appellant is seeking most of the information of a particular officer, which is personal to him and when the Commission enquired about the reason why he is asking, whether there is any personal grudge against him, the appellant hypothetically said that “ho sakata hi”, the respondent officer might have submitted forged documents at the time of his recruitment into the service. Even assuming it to be true, he should have asked about the respondent officer’s caste certificate and the basis about the same and he should have lodged a complaint, if he had evidence. All the 7 questions asked by the appellant in his RTI application, reflect his personal animosity against the respondent officer and the appellant is also not interested in explaining his status as ‘social worker’. He just names himself as ‘social worker’ and he makes a general claim that wherever there is a need of social service, he is attending the same.
4. The Commission having heard the submissions from both the parties and having perused the record, directs the respondent authority, except the name of the respondent officer, his designation, total salary, his duties and working hours, no other information shall be given to the appellant as they are absolutely personal information and no public interest is established by the appellant in its disclosure. The Commission views this as a misuse of RTI Act by the appellant for his personal vengeance. The Commission would like to discourage this kind of practices by the RTI applicants.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is closed.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Sh. Mahender Singh v. Department of Food & Supply GNCTD, Delhi in File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000490